Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police

Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of employing a police officer.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The present average cost of employing a police officer is £4,200 a year.

Mr. McWilliam: Given the high level of crime and individual risk to which police officers are now subjected, does the Home Secretary agree that that is a small price to pay?

Mr. Howard: I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have always maintained that police officers deserve to be rewarded properly for the very considerable risks that they run on our behalf and for the difficult and dangerous job that they do.

Sir Donald Thompson: What will police officers think about the boy in my constituency who committed 130 crimes, who was arrested 88 times, who was a burglar, a shoplifter and a vandal yet who finished up doing 24 hours' community service?

Mr. Howard: I think that most police officers will react to those reports in much the same way as my hon. Friend and I react to them. The courts have powers to commit young offenders who are clearly out of control to the care of local authorities, which can ensure that they are detained in secure accommodation. The powers of the courts to deal with such young offenders will be much increased when the operative provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are in force.

Mr. Bennett: Given the considerable cost of employing police officers, does the Home Secretary agree that it is very important to ensure that they are employed on police duties and not on minding remand or convicted prisoners in police cells? Given the many occasions on which his predecessors have condemned the practice of holding prisoners in police cells from that Dispatch Box, can the Home Secretary tell us when the practice will stop, at least in Greater Manchester?

Mr. Howard: I very much hope that it will stop as soon as possible. We have provided a great deal of additional prison accommodation. I do not like the practice of detaining prisoners in police cells any more

than the hon. Gentleman and I hope that we will be able to stop it quite soon. It occurs much less now than in the past.

Right to Silence

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what comparison he has made of the use of the right to silence by criminals tried in the Crown court and by criminals tried in the magistrates court.

Mr. Howard: Research cited by the Royal Commission on criminal justice suggested that exercise of the right to silence may be higher in cases that go for trial in the Crown court.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that research suggests that it is the more experienced and professional criminals who try to hide behind the right to silence, giving only their name, rank and serial number when questioned, which is one of the reasons why this change in the law is welcomed so widely not only by police men and women but by many law-abiding citizens throughout the country?

Mr. Howard: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. Research carried out on behalf of Kent constabulary suggests that experienced offenders with five or more convictions are more than three times as likely as suspects without convictions to refuse to answer questions during interviews. That bears out the proposition that was put to me by my hon. Friend: that experienced and professional criminals have made use of this device to a much greater extent than other suspects.

Mr. Mullin: In order to minimise hypocrisy, will the Home Secretary inform the House of any of his colleagues who have drawn an adverse inference from Lady Porter's decision to maintain her right to silence?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are talking about the right to silence in criminal proceedings. I thought from his intervention in last week's debate that we would be able to welcome him as a late convert to the change in the law. I am sorry that his question shows that such hopes are doomed to disappointment.

Knives

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to deal with the criminal use of knives.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The carrying of knives in public is severely restricted by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Stronger police powers of stop and search in relation to offensive weapons have been introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on responding to deep public concern about the carrying of weapons, and particularly knives, in public places. Will he confirm that the police welcome this measure


and that it will help them in their task of protecting the public? Will he please keep the powers under review and extend them if necessary?

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. Of course the police are keen on the new stop and search power in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, but that is not the only power to deal with those who carry or use knives. Those who carry knives in public can be caught under two provisions—that covering the possession offence or the offensive weapons rules if they show an intent to use a weapon. That offence can carry a sentence of imprisonment.

Mr. Cox: I welcome the Minister's reply. Is he aware that I recently tabled a question to his Department about banning the importation of a fountain pen that, within seconds, becomes a most deadly weapon with about a 4in blade? The Department replied that it did not regard the pen, which was found in a prison, as a lethal weapon, but the police, and especially the prison governor, regard it as such.

Mr. Maclean: We have power to ban certain weapons and we have used it to ban 14 weapons that can be imported. They range from rare and exotic implements from the far east to flick knives and other weapons. We are perfectly prepared to use that power again to deal with any other knives or offensive weapons if it is possible to come up with a legal definition that is sensible and is restricted to the item in question. In many cases, our ability to ban a knife is irrelevant because we have powers to deal with those who carry and use knives. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is possible to devise a rule to ban a knife that will deal with the people who wish to carry all sorts of knives in society, I am afraid that he is very much mistaken.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend find it rather strange that knives are freely available in high street shops behind clear glass for people of all ages to see, yet betting shops are shrouded in secrecy behind smoked glass? Would he kindly consider deregulating betting shops and imposing tighter regulations on shops that sell knives?

Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that of course we wish to improve visibility into betting shops; we shall certainly do that. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked about the regulation and control of knives. There are hundreds of millions of legitimate knives in society that are used for perfectly legitimate purposes. I am perfectly happy to consider any individual case for banning an offensive weapon if that weapon can be clearly defined, but the most recent reports clearly show that the knives that have been involved in some attacks have been Stanley knives, kitchen knives and vegetable knives. It would not be sensible to draw up a law banning every Sabatier knife in the country.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Ms Jowell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation following the appeal court's recent judgment.

Mr. Howard: The divisional court found that the introduction of the tariff scheme was not unlawful. By a majority, the Court of Appeal took a contrary view. The court granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords, and I intend to appeal. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further while the matter is before the courts.

Ms Jowell: May I press the Home Secretary on this matter? As the Court of Appeal has found the tariff scheme to be unlawful, will he listen to Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who said in another place that the scheme would discriminate most unfairly against those with the worst injuries? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the scheme and withdraw it immediately?

Mr. Howard: No, though it always pains me to disagree with the noble Lord. Our scheme is by far the most generous in the world. More than 40 per cent. of compensation for criminal injures paid across the world is paid in Britain. We pay more than the rest of Europe put together, more than the United States and, after the changes, our scheme will continue to be the most generous in the world.

Mr. Trimble: I appreciate the Home Secretary's reluctance to anticipate the House of Lords' decision. Will he, therefore, give an undertaking that, irrespective of that decision, he will introduce legislation to put the criminal injuries scheme on a statutory footing so that the House can scrutinise the details of the scheme and victims in England and Wales can have legal, enforceable rights?

Mr. Howard: That is my ultimate aspiration, but it would be sensible to see how the tariff scheme works in practice before introducing legislation of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Straw: Will not the whole House applaud the unexpectedly perceptive insight of the Secretary of State when he said in September,
Victims have had a raw deal"?
Is it not time for the Secretary of State to recognise that the victims of crime have had the rawest deal of all from the Government? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that he is now making victims pay the price of his own inability to control the relentless rise in violent crime, and that by these shabby , changes, for which he has had no mandate at all, he has betrayed both the voters and the victims of crime?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that everything he says on the subject is so much hot air. He resolutely refuses to say whether any future Labour Government—should there be one—would restore the criminal injuries compensation scheme. As to the relationship between the payment of compensation and violent crime, as I told the hon. Gentleman when we last discussed these matters, the facts are that since the introduction of the scheme in


1965 violent crime has increased by 500 per cent., the number of Criminal Injuries Compensation Board applications has increased by 3,000 per cent. and the average award has increased by 40,000 per cent., so there simply is not the correlation that lay behind the hon. Gentleman's question.

Police

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the actual number of police officers employed in England and Wales in (a) April 1992, (b) April 1993 and (c) April 1994.

Mr. Howard: There were 127,760 police officers in England and Wales in April 1992, 127,963 in April 1993 and 127,489 in April 1994.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Home Secretary confirm that there will be no further reductions in the number of police officers as a result of the implementation of the core function policy?

Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have published the interim report of the core function review, on which we are working very closely with the police. The objective of the review is not to reduce the number of police officers but to enable the police to concentrate on the issues that matter most, and we are taking it forward with the police.

Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a relevant consideration is how police time is used? Will he do all that he can to ensure that the police are not required to pursue to court spurious crimes of rape, such as the one involving a former university student in Portsmouth, especially as the Crown Prosecution Service often undermines police efforts by failing to press proper charges in real crimes of violence?

Mr. Howard: The key to the concern behind my hon. Friend's question lies in the need for greater co-operation, communication and liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The system works very well in some parts of the country and less well in others, but I am keen to encourage the whole country to emulate the standards of the best as soon as possible?

Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary explain why this year he refused requests from almost every chief constable in the country to deploy additional police officers, and why he presented the new police authorities with draft proposals for the limits on their budgets which would have meant that some of them would have to reduce the number of police officers on the beat?

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in the first part of his question. The truth of the matter is that many chief constables have been able to employ more police constables by slimming the middle management ranks of their police forces in a way of which I hope the right hon. Gentleman would approve. As for the second part of his question, he will have to await my announcement next week of the detailed financing arrangements for police authorities.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the statistics that he gives are both accurate

and misleading in the sense that the true test is not the number of policemen employed but the number deployed? Has not the latter increased significantly and more than pro rata with population growth in most police areas as a result of civilianisation and a reduction in paperwork in the past several years?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the key test and it is the objective that we seek to achieve. It is shared by chief constables, who are concentrating more and more of their officers on the type of duties that we all want to see them perform.

Mr. Michael: But does not the Home Secretary accept that the effect of the review of core functions will be a further serious cut in the number of police officers available on our streets? Does he accept that the Government reneged on a promise to increase the number of police officers by 1,000 at the last general election, because the actual number of police officers available for ordinary duty fell between April 1992 and April 1993 by 401?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his question not only before he heard my answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) but as long ago as before the publication of the interim report from the core function review. Had he read that report, he would know that there was no substance whatever to his introductory comment. The figures all depend on precisely which month one takes. If one took the month of May instead of April, one would find a steady increase year on year for all three of the years mentioned.

European Immigration

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will support making European immigration issues subject to qualified majority voting.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the provisions for qualified majority voting in article K and, moreover, the cross-reference with article 100c in the main body of the Community treaty, which also provides for qualified majority voting? Can he give a categoric assurance that the Government will take all steps to prevent other member states or the Commission from trying to involve qualified majority voting in immigration and other issues covered by article K?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will be familiar with K.9—I mean not the character from Dr. Who but article K.9 of the treaty on European Union—which provides for article 100c of the treaty to be extended. Article , K.9 makes it clear that that can be done only by unanimity and with the consent of the House. The Government would never bring such a proposal before the House.

Dr. Howells: If the Minister is forced to take the advice of the Europhobes on his Back Benches, will he also put a little more pressure on the Government to start punching their weight to ensure that our invaluable links with the British Commonwealth are not weakened by draft legislation currently with the Commission in Brussels, which would ensure that Commonwealth


citizens who currently do not need a visa to enter the European Union, including this country, will need a visa in future?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman refers to the provisions of article 100c of the treaty on European Union on the common visa regime. That was part of the Maastricht treaty, which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supported. It will still be for Britain to decide which countries are added to the common visa list. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that. As for Europhobes on my Back Benches, as he put it, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was making the point that we would never give up our right of veto, which Opposition Members would give away at the first opportunity.

Police Bail

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest statistics on breach of police bail; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclean: In 1993, about 59,600 defendants bailed by the police failed to appear. That figure consists of those on police bail who failed to present themselves either at a police station or at a court when required to do so.

Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread public support for the measures recently introduced by our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which tighten procedures relating to bail? Will he assure me that anyone who offends while on bail will. be dealt with most severely and will certainly never be granted bail again?

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for warmly welcoming the proposals in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which tighten bail procedures such as the new police power of arrest for breach of police bail and the ability to attach conditions. It is a source of concern that many people who are charged with an offence and granted bail commit another offence. That leads to an unnecessary 50,000 crimes and an unnecessary 50,000 victims per annum. We have introduced a new power whereby in such circumstances magistrates need not grant bail. We have given them the power, which will be available for them to use. It is a pity that the Opposition could not wholeheartedly support those proposals when the legislation was going through the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: But what about people on remand in prison who, if found guilty of the offences with which they are charged, serve more time on remand than they would if they had been convicted? In such circumstances, surely bail needs to be looked at objectively, because there are plenty of people inside who should be on bail now.

Mr. Maclean: Of course, bail must be looked at objectively by the courts and magistrates, but many people who have been granted the important privilege of bail have breached that privilege. I do not accept that they have a God-given right to remain at large in the community committing offence after offence. The new power will help to reduce the 50,000 unnecessary victims each year.

Residence Rights

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the current rules regarding residence rights for nationals of countries which are not members of the European economic area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): Rights of residence under the EC treaty apply only to EEA nationals and their accompanying family members. Our policy is to restrict severely the number of third-country nationals coming to live permanently or to work in the United Kingdom. We keep the effectiveness of that policy under review.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the United Kingdom immigration service for the work that it does? Does he agree that other EU countries may not be quite so stringent as us on immigration? Does he further agree that Churchill's reference to the "soft underbelly of Europe" possibly still applies? Will he ensure that the immigration service continues to maintain controls on people entering the United Kingdom from outside and within the EU?

Mr. Baker: I echo my hon. Friend's praise for the immigration service. I assure him that the Government's position on immigration controls is clear. In line with our interpretation of article 7A of the EC treaty, we are determined to maintain full immigration controls at our ports and airports on third-country nationals arriving from other EU member states. Frontier-based immigration controls on third country nationals are supported by a light passport or identity card check on EEA nationals.

Right to Silence

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what view he has formed of the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will enable inferences to be drawn by a court or jury if a suspect fails in the specified circumstances to answer questions put to him by the police or does not give evidence at his trial. These provisions, while not requiring anyone to forgo his right of silence, will ensure that silence will no longer be hidden from magistrates or the jury.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but in some ways have we gone far enough? Are not there serious crimes, such as terrorism and drug dealing, where suspects should be required to make a statement about what they were doing at the time of the crime.

Mr. Howard: The measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 represent a substantial step


forward. They are closely based on provisions which have worked effectively in practice in Northern Ireland for some time, and they represent about the right balance.

Mr. Skinner: Are the Government not operating double standards in relation to the right to silence? Why do they not call on the last Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, to give evidence at the Pergau dam inquiry?

Mr. Howard: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman as a late convert to our right-to-silence proposals. Will he now give them the support that seems to lie behind his question?

Mr. Deva: What views has my right hon. and learned Friend formed about the effectiveness of current laws against racially motivated attacks?

Mr. Howard: I refer my hon. Friend to the wise words of the Lord Chief Justice recently when giving judgment in a case in which it was made clear that the courts now have powers to pass appropriate sentences in cases of racially motivated crime without the need for a separate offence—which would be counter-productive, lead to unnecessarily prolonged trials and do little to deal with the mischief that many people, from the best of intentions, desire to remedy through the creation of a new offence.

Madam Speaker: The Home Secretary might also have referred the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) to question No. 27 on the Order Paper, as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was totally out of order.

Mr. David Shaw: But it was clever.

Madam Speaker: Order. It was not at all clever.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are in detention.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: On 18 November 1994, 654 people who had claimed asylum at some stage were detained under Immigration Acts powers.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that it is totally disgraceful that more than 600 people who have committed no crime nor been charged with one are in detention? They have no right of appeal to an independent appellate body or of access to the courts. Some have been detained a long time. Is the Minister not disturbed at the number of people in detention under asylum legislation powers who have undertaken hunger strikes to draw attention to their plight? Is it not time for an independent appeal body to which such cases can properly be put?

Mr. Baker: Those detained represent well under 1.5 per cent. of asylum seekers, which is a small proportion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that detention is used only as a last resort. Most people in detention have rights to appeal and to apply for bail. They have that protection, and I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's other points.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than talk about the interests of foreigners who are in most cases properly in detention, and if the Labour party is to be taken seriously in its protestations about being tough on crime, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr.

Corbyn) should stop using every opportunity to speak out against the police? Until he and other Labour Members stop attacking the police, the hon. Gentleman should not talk about people who seek asylum.

Mr. Baker: Like my hon. Friend, I urge every Member of Parliament to give the police and other lawful authorities the support that they deserve.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister confirm that it costs £800 per week to detain asylum seekers? Of the 600 current applicants, 230 are likely to be detained for between two and six months at a cost of £6,500 to £20,000. Is it not time that the Home Office took a long hard look at the procedures involved and speeded up the process, to save taxpayers money while at the same time providing some relief for detainees?

Mr. Baker: The costs cited by the hon. Gentleman represent a considerable overestimate. On the other hand, a firm detention policy, which does have a cost, is an essential part of immigration control.

Police

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers will be returned to operational duties by his plans to cut paperwork and to reduce the number of police middle-managers.

Mr. Howard: This is a matter for individual chief constables to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of their own forces, but it should be possible over time for some 5,300 police officers to be redeployed to front-line operational police duties.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, according to the latest information from Kent, not much hope is held out for redeploying police officers as a result of computerising? However, will he commend the chief constable of Kent for redeploying up to 112 officers back to the beat as a result of his management review?

Mr. Howard: I am always happy to commend the chief constable of Kent, particularly for the reason given by my hon. Friend. That is a welcome example of the kind of progress that can be made in increasing the number of police officers deployed on operational duties as a result of the kind of reorganisation which lies behind my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does the Home Secretary not understand the great concern among police officers about the mountains of paperwork with which they have to deal, much of which has been generated by the 56 Bills, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, passed by the Conservative Government since they came into office? The paperwork needs to be reduced.

Mr. Howard: Many of the provisions that have led to extra paperwork were inserted into those Bills at the Opposition's request. Whenever the Government wane to take tough action to deal with law and order, the Opposition always come along with proposals for more and more so-called safeguards, most of which add to the burden of paperwork.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, even before the implementation of those


proposals, the City of London police force has cut crime by half over the past three years? Will he congratulate it on that outstanding achievement?

Mr. Howard: I do, indeed, congratulate the City on the success that it has achieved. Other forces throughout the country are also achieving success in the fight against crime and we should all congratulate the police on the progress that they are making.

Mr. Alton: Recognising that the Merseyside police force has also made progress in the fight against crime and achieved a reduction in crime figures, does the Home Secretary agree that it is bound to lead to a loss of morale to publish proposals which the chief constable said could lead to cuts of 500 police officers and 100 civilians? Were that proceeded with, the only people who would benefit would be the criminals.

Mr. Howard: When we publish our proposals next week, the hon. Gentleman will see that the figures that he cited are wide of the mark.

Jury Service

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make regarding jury service by people on bail.

Mr. Maclean: Section 40 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 excludes people on bail from jury service. This provision will come into force early next year.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that that will be welcomed by many people because many crimes are committed by individuals on bail, which is far too easy to obtain?

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for those sensible provisions in the Criminal Justice Act. People want us to strike a sensible balance between those who can serve on juries and those who, because of their criminal conduct and being charged with an offence, would be inappropriate to serve on a jury. That sensible measure, too, has been welcomed by the police service.

Crime Statistics

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish each year the proportions of each age cohort convicted of serious criminal offences for males and females by the ages of 15, 21 and 30 years.

Mr. Maclean: Yes. Future editions of the annual Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—our well-known best seller—will include a table showing the results from five-yearly cohort studies giving the proportion convicted of a serious criminal offence by age and gender.

Mr. Bottomley: That is the best answer that I have received to that kind of question in the past five years. Given that some 2,000 serious crimes are committed each week and that 34 per cent. of men aged 30 have already been convicted of a serious criminal offence, does not that

closer tracking and monitoring show what methods work? Does he agree that our society can gain by cutting the number of people who become criminals?

Mr. Maclean: I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the answer that I gave. I hope that all my hon. Friends are happy with me, having heard the warm commendation from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). We look forward to publishing those statistics every year and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pressing me on that point.

Deaths in Custody

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that deaths in custody from unnatural causes are significantly reduced.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am concerned about the matter, and we recently issued revised guidance to governors.

Mr. Sutcliffe: When will the prison service change its procedures to allow the full facts of internal inquiries to be made available to the families of people who have died in prison? Are there any moves to allow that under way?

Mr. Forsyth: I think I know which case is concerning the hon. Gentleman. His distinguished predecessor, the late Bob Cryer, raised the matter with the Prison Service. Difficulties are involved in making internal inquiry reports publicly available because of security and other considerations. In view of the hon. Gentleman's further representations, however, I will discuss the matter with the Director General of the Prison Service. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have done so.

Dame Jill Knight: Are not many people in custody drug addicts who have already, by their own actions, increased their risk of death or ill health?

Mr. Forsyth: It is certainly true that a number of prisoners have a history of drug abuse; it is also true that some prison suicides have been involved in drug abuse. It is important that we identify those who may be at risk at an early stage, when they are admitted to prison, and ensure that proper procedures are in place to prevent the recurrence of recent tragedies.

Closed Circuit Television

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he will use to decide on the funding for closed circuit television in urban areas.

Mr. Howard: The criteria for bids under the CCTV challenge competition which I announced recently were set out in the bidding guidance issued to all local authorities and police forces on 9 November. Priority will be given to smaller centres of population but bids from large urban areas are not excluded.

Ms Jackson: I thank the Home Secretary for his reply. I welcome his somewhat uncharacteristic change of mind in finding Home Office funding for such schemes, but why will they run for only a year—given that they are clearly effective—and why should the obtaining of such limited funds as are available be subject to the winning of a competition?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady must not make the mistake of supposing that such schemes can be introduced only as a


result of Government funding. They are being instituted all over the country as a result of partnership between the private sector, local authorities and, where appropriate, central Government. Whether or not the hon. Lady's constituency succeeds in the challenge competition, I hope that she will encourage those concerned to do what is necessary to install closed circuit television.

Mr. McLoughlin: I welcome the advances that have been made in the provision of closed circuit television in urban areas. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also consider making such schemes available to rural towns, where police forces are not currently readily available for deployment? Closed circuit television could have a significant impact on the reduction of crime in such areas.

Mr. Howard: The criteria make provision for bids from rural towns, and I look forward to receiving very good bids from west Derbyshire.

Community Sentences

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the review of community sentences.

Mr. Howard: I shall be publishing revised national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community early next year.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his response. Is he aware that many of my constituents fear that a number of convicted criminals who receive community sentences seem to be getting away with it? Will he give an assurance that, when the new guidelines are published, community sentences will become far stiffer? Currently, they may be seen as an affront to the police who have put so much time into the cases, and also to the victims of crime.

Mr. Howard: I believe that my hon. Friend's views are widely shared. The revised national standards ban holidays abroad and require every probation service in the country to impose tough physical work. I think that that is exactly what my hon. Friend had in mind, and I share his views.

Policing

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to estate-based policing in urban areas.

Mr. Maclean: The Government encourage the police service to adopt community policing strategies which involve their local communities. The partnership initiative that we launched this year is aimed at developing projects in partnership between the police and the community to prevent and tackle crime locally.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that one of the most successful ways of policing urban areas, particularly local authority housing estates, is just that partnership between the local police and the local people? When that is successful, private security firms are not needed and can be dispensed with on all council estates. Public policing is what people want, not privatised policing in public areas.

Mr. Maclean: That is why we are delivering public policing through the partnership initiative. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents, through neighbourhood watch and street watch, and that he will

encourage his council to do what Wandsworth is doing in helping the police to recruit more special constables and more neighbourhood constables—people with the full powers and duties of a police officer. It is working, and the hon. Gentleman should support it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. McKelvey: In the course of his very busy day, will the Prime Minister show some concern for the plight of the disabled, the elderly and the poor in our society who suffer disproportionately because they cannot pay their fuel bills? Will he chuck the intended VAT increase into the dustbin where it belongs and replace it with an adequate cold climate allowance?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will be making a statement on the disalied after Question Time. On fuel and power generally, the VAT compensation package compensates not only poorer pensioners but others for VAT on fuel. The measures are worth about £2.5 billion over three years. From 1996–97 onwards, spending on benefits and pensions will have been increased permanently by £1.25 billion a year. That is an indication of the extent to which we are prepared to make and have made provision to help people on low incomes.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend understand that I For one would rather resign the party Whip than vote for a Bill with which dozens of his right hon. and hon. Friends do not agree and for which there is no popular support? Will he recognise the absolute folly of imposing a highly unpopular tax for the purpose of paying the subscription to a highly unpopular and increasingly expensive club?

The Prime Minister: Like me, my hon. Friend ha; a large rural constituency and I suspect that there are many net gainers in his constituency as a result of our membership of the European Union. On the European Communities (Finance) Bill, as my hon. Friend knows, there was very broad support in the governing party and in other parties for the deal that I reached at Edinburgh in 1992. It has a small additional cost for the United Kingdom—£75 million next year, rising to £250 million in 1999. It preserves the United Kingdom abatement, which is very important and which has saved us £16 billion since 1984. As a result of the agreement that I reached, the Uniited Kingdom's share of the cost falls proportionately by a substantial amount and becomes far less than that of many other member states. As a result of the agreement, we shall be below Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria,


Sweden and Norway in the league table of net contributors. It is an agreement that we can legitimately commend to the House and, on its merits, it merits support.

Mr. Blair: Now that the Cabinet has confirmed that next Monday's vote is indeed a vote of confidence, may I take it that the Prime Minister will be leading for and speaking for the Government in that debate?

The Prime Minister: The vote of confidence relates not just to the vote on Monday but, as I said to the House some time ago, to the passage of the Bill in all its essentials. In those circumstances, the Cabinet considers it right that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should open.

Mr. Blair: I find that extraordinary. Can the Prime Minister understand why people do not feel confident in his Government? Would the following be a fair summary of where he stands this week? The deputy chairman of his party is found to have written a memorandum which admits the total contempt that the British public has for his party. The vice-chairman of his party is forced to resign after remarks about our European partners which beggar belief in an adult politician. The chairman of the Prime Minister's Back-Bench Committee is challenged because he is too loyal to the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, meanwhile, talks of suicide pacts among Ministers while getting his sums wrong on the European budget. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's Back-Bench Members roll around the television studios in a state of anarchy. After this week, would not any objective, reasonable observer conclude that his party has become an ill-disciplined rabble incapable of governing this country?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman managed to muddle most of his facts as between deputy chairman and vice-chairman, he is certainly wrong on almost every statement that he uttered. If he really wants to know about divisions and rabbles, he might well look at the divisions in his own party, not least below the Gangway. He might well look at divisions between himself and the deputy leader of the Labour party. He might well look at the divisions in his own position on Europe. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said some years ago—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like it, but perhaps they should hear it. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said:
We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC.
It was the right hon. Gentleman who said more recently:
Well, I wasn't actually opposed to membership of the European Community.
Just a few days ago, it was the right hon. Gentleman who said:
Under my leadership, I will never allow this country to be isolated and left behind in Europe.
The only thing that moves that fast is a rabbit heading for its burrow.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also agree that, apart from the comprehensive answer that he gave previously, the essential reality for Monday is that the glib repudiation of a solemn treaty, an international agreement and a modest proposal for European Union financing increases would be almost as bad as a shameful attack on our closest foreign allies, which we have heard from other quarters in the past few days?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on an important point that was missed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government are standing by an agreement

that we reached in 1992 with strong support in the House at the time and that we reached with our European partners. The Bill before the House implements an international agreement that was negotiated with full Cabinet backing, accepted by the Cabinet and widely endorsed by the House. It is for that reason that it is inescapably a matter of confidence that the Government should secure the passage of that legislation.

Mr. Ashdown: Whatever the Prime Minister's protestations, does he not realise that it is the view of most people in this country that his Government and their kamikaze Cabinet have now descended into farce and civil war? If, on Monday, they were forced to go, the whole country would cheer and a start could be made on putting our nation's problems right.

The Prime Minister: I sometimes think that the right hon. Gentleman spends all the time between Tuesday and Thursday and between Thursday and Tuesday practising his next sound bite. He certainly gives that impression week after week. I remind him that it is he and his party who claim to be strong Europeans, he and his party who time and again joined in procedural votes to try to wreck the Maastricht treaty, and he and his party who will find an excuse next Monday to vote against the Government. Their commitment to Europe is skin deep when it comes to essentials.

Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cairo conference on population and development in September was a landmark in dealing with world population growth in that it produced a global action plan agreed by almost every country? Does he agree, in particular, that the best way to implement such a plan would be for other countries to follow the Government's example and announce a similar huge increase in funding of 60 per cent. such as he announced in July?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a very serious international problem and I think that the international conference which took place was an extremely useful and worthwhile event. As my hon. Friend indicated, we made a substantial contribution—I think, from memory, that the commitment was around £100 million over the next two or three years—and we played a very positive part in that conference. It is a matter of importance and one to which we shall give continuing interest in the future.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ainsworth: Following today's astonishing revelations of a massive security breach by an employee on a short-term contract at British Telecom, will the Prime Minister be ordering an inquiry? If so, will it cover the huge increase in agency and casual labour since privatisation?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the report in The Independent this morning to which I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring. I understand from inquiries made this morning that BT has carried out an investigation and


tells us that it is satisfied that there has been no hacking of the system, nor any evidence that confidential information referred to in the article has ever been available on Internet.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend heard of the presumptuous attempt by the town of Preston to usurp the place of the city of Lancaster as the county town of Lancashire? Will he put every possible obstacle in the way of that outrageous presumption?

The Prime Minister: I see that my hon. Friend has the cross-party support of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As a southerner unfamiliar with this particular matter, I think that it would be unwise for me to commit myself, but, naturally, as my hon. Friend raises the matter, I shall look at it very carefully.

Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), yesterday told the House that he was disgusted with the Maples proposals for inter-party warfare, yobbos and trying to trick people into positions? He said that they were completely unjustifiable and called on the Prime Minister to repudiate them immediately. Will the Prime Minister do that this afternoon—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that any of my hon. Friends would be nasty to the right hon. Gentleman, I give him my assurance that my hon. Friends will be very gentle with him.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country's international reputation for probity is built on the proposition that contracts are honoured and commitments kept?

The Prime Minister: I agree precisely with that proposition. It is upon that proposition that the Cabinet is determined to honour the agreement that I reached on behalf of the British Government two years ago with our European partners in Edinburgh.

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gapes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the acute financial crisis facing Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, which is asking Redbridge health care trust to do 10 per cent. more work for about £2.5 million less next year? Will he express his clear and unambiguous commitment to do everything possible to keep King George's hospital open and stop any closure of its accident and emergency department?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly study the position that exists within that health district and ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. I do not have the facts in front of me and I do not propose to commit myself until I have looked at them.

Sir Wyn Roberts: As the Leader of the Opposition welcomed the recovery, growth and low inflation in the economy, is there any reason why we should pay any attention whatever to the shadow Chancellor, who is intent on sabotaging those achievements?

The Prime Minister: I would think probably no reason at all. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman does not do so—and if he does not, I see no reason why we should.

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in an answer to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), he told the House
No Government have ever been more open than this one and there is no suspicion of sleaze."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 104.]
Is that still his view, or does he at last realise that he set the standard at the last general election when he accepted money from foreign-based business men in return for continuing tax concessions?

Hon. Members: What about Maxwell?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friends remind me of one person who formerly funded the Labour party. The hon. Lady ought to contemplate that. Perhaps the Labour party should return the money to the Maxwell pensioners which they donated to it some time ago.

Railtrack

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of Railtrack, which has been a Government-owned company responsible for rail infrastructure since April this year.
The Government intend to privatise Railtrack within the lifetime of this Parliament. We shall do that using the powers provided by the Railways Act 1993. Although the precise details and timing will be announced later in the light of market conditions, I can confirm that Railtrack will be floated on the stock market and that everyone will have the opportunity to buy shares.
The Government believe that privatisation offers the best future for Railtrack, for passengers and freight and for train operators. It will allow greater use of private sector skills in managing the network, improving Railtrack stations, delivering efficient track maintenance and encouraging investment in the upgrading of railway lines. It will provide even greater scope for private capital to be injected into better facilities. Railtrack will be better able to deliver improvements in the service that it provides to operators and, therefore, to passengers.
Privatisation has been one of the great achievements of this Government since 1979. It has transformed former state-owned industries and brought real improvements for customers and employees alike. It has brought new management techniques and new sources of investment. It has spread ownership throughout society. Indeed, Britain's example has been copied around the world.
The Department of Transport has been at the forefront of that programme. The National Freight Company Ltd., Sealink, National Express Ltd., Associated British Ports, the British Airports Authority and British Airways are all thriving in the private sector. This announcement paves the way for the creation of another important private company.
The privatisation of Railtrack will be the most significant single step in the process of transferring the ownership and operation of Britain's railways to the private sector. The Government have set the target of franchising a majority of train services by April 1996. That target remains. The Franchising Director will shortly start the pre-qualification process for the first franchises. The Government will be selling the rolling stock leasing companies next year. Privatisation of British Rail's infrastructure services units, British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and other businesses is already in progress and the transfer of British Rail's domestic freight services to the private sector should be completed by the end of 1995.
Privatisation will enable Railtrack to provide a better service, bringing substantial benefits to train operators, passengers and other rail users, and to investors. My announcement demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to privatisation. It demonstrates our continuing commitment to railway privatisation. It demonstrates our continuing commitment to improving rail services. Above all, it demonstrates our continuing commitment to passengers and to our national economy.

Mr. Michael Meacher: In answer to the statement, I make it clear, without equivocation, that Labour remains wholly committed to a publicly owned

rail system because that is what best serves the travelling public, industry and commerce, and the nation at large. This privatisation, if it were to go ahead—and that is a very big "if'—has nothing to do with the dictates of transport policy. It is driven entirely by the Government's desperate desire to make a quick financial killing to finance Tory tax cuts in time for the next election. This is a classic example of the Maples memorandum in action, giving priority to getting a Tory Government re-elected, however much it damages the interests of the nation at large.
Does the Secretary of State for Transport recall that the Minister for Public Transport told the Standing Committee in February last year:
Railtrack, at least for the foreseeable future, will be in the public sector"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25 February 1993; c. 445.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that until only a few months ago, Tory Ministers constantly repeated that Railtrack was to stay in the public sector while the passenger franchises and freight companies were sold off?
Is not it clear that this privatisation is now being hurriedly brought forward because there is little or no investor interest in the franchises, for the very good reasons that the train operators' profitability will always depend on political decisions about the level of subsidy and that their major fixed costs—rail access charges—will remain outside their control? As much the same objections apply to privatising Railtrack, 90 per cent. of whose income will come from train operators, is not it now also clear that the right hon. Gentleman will be obliged, if he proceeds, to sell it off at any price that removes the risk for investors while still leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bill for that risk?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his leaked letter to the Prime Minister of 15 November that the privatisation of Railtrack was now
integral to the Budget arithmetic.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Railtrack assets had been valued at about £6.5 billion and that a sale at any lesser price would be ripping off a unique national asset simply because of the Government's manic desire to fund tax cuts at any cost before the next election?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that while the Tory party is looking to its interests in the matter, the country and the travelling public will pay in the future? Does he acknowledge that Railtrack's pushing up rail access charges is bound to be passed on in higher passenger fares? Does he recognise that there will be nothing to stop a privatised Railtrack engaging in an orgy of asset-stripping of real estate? Does he accept that a privatised Railtrack undermines the whole regulatory and safety framework of the railways? Does he admit that the mass of leases and contracts that will be required will generate a further mountain of bureaucracy?
This privatisation, if it were to happen, would be deeply damaging to the long-term interests of the nation and the travelling public. We shall fight tooth and nail to stop it happening.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in just about everything that he says, but that does not come as a surprise to Conservative Members. To try to suggest that this privatisation has only just occurred to the Government is to ignore the hours and hours that right


hon. and hon. Members spent in the House on the Railways Bill, which culminated in the Railways Act 1993, during which it was made clear repeatedly that we would move British Rail into the private sector. That is what we shall do today.
The hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the then Minister for Public Transport. Let me add two other quotations to those cited by the hon. Gentleman, which he—selectively—forgot to mention. The first is by my noble Friend Lord Caithness, the then Minister of State, who said on 15 July 1993:
We have made it clear that Railtrack's existence as a Government-owned company will last only until it is feasible to transfer it to the private sector."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1993; Vol. 548, c. 354.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said in Committee on 16 March 1993:
Railtrack will initially be in the public sector, supported by the Government … through revenue charges. We hope that ultimately the infrastructure itself can be transferred to the private sector, but I cannot forecast when that will be."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 March 1994; c. 783.]
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that today I can forecast when that will be. It will be during the lifetime of this Parliament. I recognise from the hon. Gentleman's quotation in today's edition of The Times that he understands that this will be a popular move with the public. What he needs to understand is that the Government have a commitment to the taxpayer and to the investor and they will make judgments in terms of selling in the light of market conditions at the time. I shall not be drawn beyond that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about access charges, he clearly does not understand the system. He needs to understand that access charges will be negotiated between Railtrack and those who are operating on the rails and that those charges must be covered by the regulator. He has forgotten to mention that point. As for safety, perhaps he will be encouraged to know that the Health and Safety Commission is fully satisfied with the proposals before the House.
Finally, I must say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that I hope that they will notice where the hon. Gentleman started. He started by saying that Labour Members were still in favour of the railways being in the public sector. He made no commitment to reverse the privatisation process and the country at large will have taken notice of that omission.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The statement is a welcome step, which follows yesterday's presentation of a Bill to secure one of the most widespread, expensive rail investments—the channel tunnel high-speed link, which will do a great deal to add to the prosperity of the railways, not only to London but up the east coast, where it will knock an hour off the journey. We are told that the assets are £6,000 million. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to achieve higher capital spending, more use of the railways, lower current subsidies and a more competitive option compared with the roads and that we do not need the Opposition's idea of quangos, which would have half of British industry under the appointments that they as politicians would wish to make?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is very knowledgeable about those matters, so it is

entirely understandable that he should be right. He draws attention to the importance of Railtrack being able to have access to greater and freer investment, and that is important. However, he also draws attention to the very important improvements in efficiency, which will come from the proposals and from Railtrack being in the private sector. That has been demonstrable in all the other privatisations and it has been to the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about the amount that the sale of Railtrack is expected to produce? Is not it true that a large number of book assets such as the Severn tunnel, the Forth bridge, the Tamar bridge and viaducts in more remote parts of the country are liabilities in the longer term, so the net proceeds of this exercise, after the costs of privatisation, could be as little as £1.5 billion, which is only a one penny yearly reduction in income tax? Is it worth going through this performance for that result?
Can the Secretary of State give us a cast-iron guarantee that this whole disruptive exercise will retain a national rail network to every part of the United Kingdom, however remote and peripheral?

Dr. Mawhinney: We are seeking to move the railway industry to the private sector for the benefit of the consumer. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that. He and his hon. Friends took exactly the same line on every single privatisation brought before the House in the past 15 years. They tried exactly the same arguments, scare stories and smears, aided and abetted by the Labour party. They were proved wrong in every single case, and they will be wrong in this one as well.
As for the assets and their value, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I will not answer that question, and he knows why I am not in a position to answer it. This is a commercial transaction that will be undertaken in the light of market conditions when the time is right, for the benefit of taxpayers and investors.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. After those original exchanges, I want brisk questions and brisk answers. There are two more statements today and there is a good deal of business to go through. I am asking for short questions and quick responses.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I urge my right hon. Friend to take with a very large pinch of salt the semi-pledge of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to renationalise British Rail, because we have seen that sort of pledge time and again. When Railtrack is privatised, we shall see what vigorous management and private capital can do to an industry, as has happened with British Airways, British Telecom and a string of other utilities and companies.

Madam Speaker: That was not a question. I have just reminded the House that I want to hear questions. That was a statement and I do not want statements from Back Benchers. I want questions. Very quickly, please, Minister.

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we both read Hansard tomorrow, I think that he


will find that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made absolutely no pledge to renationalise British Rail.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I speak for consumers when I ask the Minister to cast his mind back to the beginning of the year when Railtrack announced its track access charges. The train operators were astonished that the charges were twice as high as they were under British Rail. Will the Minister tell the House how a private monopoly will provide a better deal for the travelling public than a public service railway?

Dr. Mawhinney: As has happened in every single privatisation, which the hon. Gentleman refused to support and now recognises has been a success, the private sector will bring efficiency gains and market and management skills to the negotiations on access charges, which, as I have already reminded the House, will be subject to approval by the regulator.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, historically, most companies that have been privatised have invested considerably more in infrastructure and in their industries post-privatisation, and that that should lead to an expansion of the railway system? In the meantime, can he assure the House that Railtrack will not be denied much-needed investment while it is in the public sector?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the investment record of companies that have moved from the public sector to the private sector. That is partly the reason why the level, quality and sensitivity of services to consumers have improved in those businesses, and will improve in this industry as well.

Dr. John Marek: Is not it true that, if the Railtrack privatisation goes ahead, charges for passengers will go through the roof, and that the Minister is seeking privatisation because he wants to gratify some of his sleazy friends in the City by allowing them to develop more much-needed car parks and city centre projects? I agree with the Minister: our Front Bench has not said that the railways should be renationalised. But when the truth comes out, does the Minister accept that our Front Bench will then say that we have to bring Railtrack back into the public sector?

Dr. Mawhinney: We shall see. I do not intend to become involved in the private grief of the Labour party, nor will I get into the gutter of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked about fares. The Railways Act 1993 gives the Franchising Director the specific duty of ensuring that fares charged by franchisees are reasonable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by that.

Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In the light of it, what are the prospects for stations such as Bournemouth Central in my constituency, which has long been covered in scaffolding and needs multi-million pound restoration

work that has not been forthcoming under British Rail? Can my constituents look forward to an early restoration of that station as a result of the statement?

Dr. Mawhinney: Clearly, I am not in a position to anticipate Railtrack's decisions. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of Railtrack, but I know that he will agree that prospects are improved by my statement.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Given that Railtrack currently operates on an 8 per cent. return on investment, will the Minister assure the House that, post-privatisation, that will prevail as access charges will still need taxpayers' subsidy? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, any such profit should be ploughed back into the rail industry and not into the pockets of the Government's friends in the City.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am announcing the start of a process that will culminate in a prospectus followed by flotation on the stock market. The hon. Lady will have to wait for the prospectus.

Mr. Richard Alexander: As, predictably, the Opposition are making heavy weather of what is basically an attempt to improve efficiency and the delivery of service in the railway system, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that what he has announced has nothing to do with possible future tax cuts?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is on a good point. We are today carrying forward the consequences of the legislation passed by the House, which made it clear that the Government's view was that British Rail in all its aspects would offer a better service to customers if it was in the private sector than it has offered over the past 40 to 50 years. I pay tribute to the staff and management of British Rail, who over recent years and within the constraints of the system have sought to provide a better service.
My hon. Friend will have noticed that Labour Members are huffing and puffing, but that they have no policy. They will not commit themselves to the maintenance of the nationalised industry, to putting more money into the system or to a privatised industry. They will not commit themselves to anything, and the country will notice that.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Who will have control of the British Transport police following privatisation?

Dr. Mawhinney: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there will be no change as a result of my statement.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that stations will be cleaner, that public address systems will be used more to inform passengers of difficulties, and that in every way passengers will have a better service? Does he see the inconsistency of at least some people in the Labour party, who are against clause 4 but who want to keep Railtrack in public ownership?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is on a good point and has given some illustrations of the benefits that are likely to accrue to customers and passengers as a


consequence of the freedom, the extra management skills and the extra investment that are likely to flow from the movement of Railtrack into the private sector.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that the Secretary of State has taken this mammoth decision to proceed, can he give me and my constituents in west Cumberland an absolute assurance that the line from Carlisle through west Cumbria to Barrow-in-Furness will survive under privatisation? May we have that assurance because my constituents will be watching us on television this evening?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are so interested in our proceedings. I have made it clear to the Franchising Director that I expect him to present minimum service specifications on broadly the present timetable.

Mr. Stephen Day: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance about the scheme that is currently being brought together on the west coast main line for important works south of Crewe? Is he sure that that line, which is important to my constituents and to the whole of the north-west, will not in any way be hindered by the legislation, but that its chances of getting finance from the private sector may be improved?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point to the important part that the west coast main line plays within the Railtrack infrastructure. He will know that Railtrack is in the process of reviewing the steps that need to be taken to upgrade the line, and we are looking for private sector partners to be involved in that. None of the process will be damaged; it may be enhanced, but it certainly will not be damaged by what I have said today.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State assure us that Railtrack will be sold off as a single unit, and if not, on what criteria will he supervise its disintegration, particularly in respect of signalling, the cost of expensive bridges and tunnels and their replacement and maintenance, and the prevention of small parcels of land in cities for terminal stations and other yards being sold off to speculators? What criteria will he have in all those matters?

Dr. Mawhinney: For the purpose of brevity, let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in my statement. I said:
I can confirm that Railtrack will be floated on the stock market and everyone will have the opportunity to buy shares.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the legislation. Will my right hon. Friend say, so that I can confirm it to my constituents in Kidderminster—particularly those who use the Kidderminster to Birmingham line—that, as a result of the legislation, as was the case with the privatisation of

telecommunications, there will be more investment in their rail lines, more choice and better pricing and that they will get a far better service overall?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend has explained precisely and accurately the benefits that we expect to flow from the announcement that I have just made.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister guarantee that, unlike other privatisations, no Tory Minister on leaving the Government will be allowed to serve on the privatised board?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows better than most the guidance that covers the behaviour of Ministers and ex-Ministers.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that many people in British manufacturing industry believe that the only process that his Department has been in the forefront of is the destruction of our engineering base? Is he further aware that if there are no orders for rolling stock, within months Britain will have no rolling stock manufacturing capacity, in just the same way as his Department destroyed the bus and coach industry in Britain?

Dr. Mawhinney: What nonsense. It is true, however, that British Rail is conducting a review of rolling stock. I understand the pressures to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. I know that there is a degree of urgency surrounding the issues and I do not dismiss them lightly, but he knows as well as I do that it is not for me to make those judgments, although I note with care the concern that he expressed.

Mr. Thomas Graham: After the deregulation of the buses, many parts of Britain were completely isolated and no longer had a bus service. A number of communities rely totally on Railtrack services. Will the Minister give us an assurance that those who have been isolated because of Government deregulation of the buses will have a lifeline to the main centres of their communities?

Dr. Mawhinney: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that those communities have not been isolated because of Government policy, but as a consequence of a number of decisions taken in each locality. I repeat the comment that I made earlier to the House, that the Franchising Director knows that I expect him to bring forward minimum service specifications for the franchises broadly in line with the present timetable.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Given the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for a proper public transport system and his enthusiasm for this measure, can he tell me how it will improve public transport in Greater Manchester before the next general election?

Dr. Mawhinney: The public transport infrastructure in Greater Manchester has already been improved in the past few years, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. I shall not anticipate any statements that may be made from the Dispatch Box over the next two years, but I am quite clear that the people of Manchester will benefit, as will the rest of the country, from increased investment, increased


management skills and increased sensitivity to what the customer wants, which are represented by today's statement.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Secretary of State explain how more consumer choice will result from converting a public monopoly into a private monopoly? As he is so proud of the number of privatisations that have been carried out by his Department, when does it intend to reduce the number of Ministers in the Department, given that they have fewer responsibilities?

Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention on 20 July, he would have noticed that the number of Ministers in the Department fell from five to four. I take that as a compliment and, with my colleagues, I shall seek to live up to the work rate that the five previously did.
As for the broader point that the hon. Gentleman makes, he needs to understand that the movement of Railtrack is but one part, although a significant part, of the movement of British Rail into the private sector. I am absolutely clear in my mind that when the railways are subject to the market, to competition and to the efficiency gains that will flow from the management and the investment that will be brought to bear in the private sector, the same result will accrue as has previously accrued with other transport industries. The result will be that passengers, those who wish to move freight and other train operators will see benefit for their customers.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out to the Minister that rail safety looms large in the minds of my constituents following the tragic deaths of two young men in a rail accident caused by a mindless act of vandalism? Will he retract what he said about the Health and Safety Executive giving the privatisation a clean bill of health? Did not the HSE point to 28 areas of public and safety concern, which may well be exacerbated by this appalling decision?

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the particular concern that the hon. Gentleman has for safety in the light of the experience to which he has just referred. I assure him, as I have done on other transport matters in the four months during which I have had this responsibility, that I yield to no one in my commitment to ensure that every aspect of transport in Britain is as safe as possible. The Health and Safety Commission has examined in detail every aspect of safety in relation to the new railway and is fully satisfied with the arrangements.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Minister is aware of the difficulties that many of the privatised companies that were formerly British Rail Engineering Ltd. are in as a result of the shortfall in rolling stock orders due directly to privatisation. Is not it necessary for him to give some idea in the prospectus of the Government's plans for rail in the next 10 years? Surely the likely profits for investors will depend directly on Government policy.

Dr. Mawhinney: The decisions about investment in rolling stock are for those who have the responsibility of managing the system. As for giving an idea of the prospects for the railway industry in the next 10 years, I

should have thought that that was precisely what I was doing today. I have done it precisely because I have confidence that the decisions that we have just announced are likely to lead to an improvement in the service; in the quality of the service and—it is my personal belief—also in the extent of the service.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it logical to privatise Railtrack because it is impossible for the Government to privatise the Post Office?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about Railtrack today and that it is perfectly possible to do that, having announced that we intended to do it. The actions that will ensue will be the best possible answer to his question.

Mr. Peter Hain: Has not the Secretary of State in his statement today turned the whole of the Government's privatisation case on its head by putting the sale of Railtrack before the franchising of rolling stock? Does not that confirm that this is a panic statement, created by the gap in the Government's finances following their humiliating backdown over Post Office privatisation?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that Railtrack would be moving into the private sector by way of a stock market flotation during the lifetime of this Parliament. I also said:
The Government have set the target of franchising a majority of train services by April 1996.… The Government will be selling the rolling stock leasing companies next year. Privatisation of British Rail's infrastructure services units"—

Mr. Hain: We know all that.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman does not know it. He clearly was not listening because he asked the question that he did. We shall see. The hon. Gentleman and I will judge the actions, not his rhetoric. But let me finish. Privatisation of British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and other businesses is already in progress and the transfer of British Rail's domestic freight services should be completed by the end of 1995. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is part of a package approach, and all of it stems from the legislation to which, no doubt, he objected, although he has nothing to put in its place.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State has just said that after privatisation the ownership of the British Transport police would remain unchanged. As the ownership of the police is currently vested in Railtrack, does that mean that the BTP will be privatised? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any particular contributor to Tory party funds in mind?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows the status of the independent transport police, answerable to Her Majesty's inspector, and I have no change to announce.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State now give a straight answer to the question that he has been dodging with some pre-arranged gobbledegook? If the privatisation goes ahead, precisely how will he guarantee the continuation of the whole rail network, including lines that are important to Scottish tourism, such as the highland line, and vital links to Northern Ireland, such


as the Stranraer line? How can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that such lines will continue if his privatisation goes ahead?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to say yet again that the Franchising Director has responsibility to produce minimum service specifications. He is instructed by me to do so broadly on the present timetable, and that is the sort of assurance that any honourable and reasonable Member of the House would be happy to accept.

Disabled People (Discrimination)

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people.
Earlier this year, the Government published a wide range of proposals in a consultation document. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), not only for his work on the proposals, but for his tireless efforts over seven years as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We have received a large number of responses to the consultation document and I am grateful to all those who have commented.
As promised, we considered the responses carefully. The result is a package that goes substantially wider and deeper than the proposals that we put forward in the summer. As we develop the detail of our proposals in the coming months, I want to continue to work closely with disabled people and others so that the result is a package that meets the wishes of disabled people, and the legitimate interests of businesses.
Over the past 15 years, the Government have taken a series of measures to help disabled people live with dignity and independence. We have trebled the amount spent on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and introduced new benefits, such as the disability working allowance; the recent reform of community care has given local authorities additional resources of £1.25 billion in 1994–95; the new access to work programme enables more disabled people to take up employment; the introduction of part M of the building regulations will ensure access for disabled people to public buildings; the new Education Act 1993 improves schools' provision in meeting special educational needs; and there has been action to build on widespread achievements in the field of transport.
Those initiatives, combined with the efforts of local government, the voluntary sector, the private sector and disabled people themselves, have led to major advances in the opportunities open to disabled people and the attitude towards them of the rest of the community.
A process of change has been taking place. It must continue. An aging population will bring an increasing number of people with some form of disability. It is wrong and it is wasteful for many of them to be restricted or excluded from many aspects of life. One way or another, our society must meet the aspirations of disabled people by ensuring that they are included on an equal basis in our work, travel, study and leisure.
Our objective is clear: to eliminate discrimination against disabled people so that they can take a full part in society. But changes cannot happen overnight, as disabled people themselves recognise. It is vital that the action that we take has a realistic timetable, is practical and takes account of the impact on service providers.
I am therefore announcing today a series of measures and legislative proposals that have been conceived in conjunction with my colleagues in the Departments of Health, Transport, Education and Employment, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, and my right hon. and learned Friend the


Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Taken together, they will represent the greatest advance for disabled people in the history of this country.
We shall shortly publish a Bill that will deal with employment, rights of access and the establishment of a national disability council. Similar legislation is proposed for Northern Ireland. We shall also take new action on education and transport.
Greater employment opportunities are at the heart of enabling disabled people to be fully active and independent members of society. Some employers have done much in recent years to improve matters, but there is evidence that discrimination persists. It is clear that the current quota system is unworkable and fails to meet the needs of disabled people. We therefore propose to repeal it.
We propose to introduce a statutory right of non-discrimination against disabled people. It will be unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably than he would treat others, unless there are justifiable reasons. In combination with that, employers will be required to make a reasonable adjustment where that would help overcome the practical effects of disability.
The new access to work scheme can provide a wide range of practical help to disabled people and to their employers of up to £21,000 over five years. The new employment right will be a major step forward in improving the employment prospects of disabled people. Disabled people who suffer discrimination will be able to complain to industrial tribunals, where the remedies available will be the same as those under other discrimination legislation.
There will be a power to make regulations to ensure that adjustments do not involve excessive costs. The duties will apply to employers with 20 or more employees. Employers will continue to be able to recruit the best person for the job.
A code of practice and guidance will be produced to promote clear understanding and reduce the likelihood of disputes arising. Should recourse to an industrial tribunal be necessary, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service would be able to offer the services of its conciliation officers.
The Government's consultation document was aimed at ensuring that service providers did not deny access to disabled people because of prejudice or ignorance. In the light of responses to the consultation document, the Government believe that that proposal does not go far enough. Where practical, we also need to remove physical and communication barriers that prevent the access to goods and services that most of us are lucky enough to take for granted.
The new right of access will require service providers to make their premises and services accessible to disabled people as long as that is "readily achievable". It is vital that the new right is framed in such a way as to lead to genuine and lasting progress. We shall therefore give businesses the option of providing their services by alternative means, and will require modifications only to the extent that they are readily achievable and subject to a financial limit. We shall also ensure that there is a proper phasing-in period.
We shall consult on the length of the phasing-in period, the financial limit and the possibility of other exemptions from the right—for example, older or listed buildings. We shall arrange to provide advice and conciliation with respect to the new right, and we are considering measures to ensure that where legal action does take place, redress can be obtained without undue difficulty or expense.
Those provisions will ensure that every business and service provider takes action to meet the needs of disabled people. They will leave no one in any doubt that the fair treatment of disabled people is a responsibility placed on us all.
In addition, within the next few weeks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be issuing his own consultation document on making new domestic properties more accessible. The consultation document made clear the Government's intention to exclude financial services from any right of equal access, but as a result of responses received, I propose to include financial services in the new statutory right. We shall look closely, in consultation with the insurance industry, at how legislation could be best framed to prevent discrimination while recognising the legitimate need for insurance companies to distinguish between any customers on the basis of likely costs entailed in meeting their insurance claims.
All those new rights will apply to all persons with a physical or mental impairment that is long term or recurring. The impairment would have to have a substantial effect on the person's ability to carry out normal activities.
The Bill will also establish a national disability council—an independent body to advise the Government on how existing and new measures to help disabled people are working, and to recommend further measures where necessary. It will be a powerful new voice for disabled people in the decision-making process. It will present an annual report on its activities and findings, so that we can continue to make progress, and that report will be laid before Parliament.
The consultation document was limited to the employment right, the right of access and the establishment of the national disability council. But we now propose to go further—by bringing forward proposals on education and transport.
The more that disabled children can be educated with their able-bodied peers, the less we shall see adults avoiding, ignoring or feeling embarrassed by disabled people. We must ensure that that new approach is not frustrated by the physical inaccessibility of mainstream schools.
The Education Act 1993 was a major advance in meeting special educational needs. It re-enacts the requirement for local education authorities to find a suitable place for every child with a disability and enhances parents' rights of school preference and appeals against decisions. Next year, the Department for Education will conduct an audit of accessibility of all schools. Once its results are available, local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools will have an up-to-date picture of facilities, helping to inform their work on the supply of suitable places.
Linking with that programme of improvement, we want to take new steps to encourage schools to make themselves more accessible to pupils with disabilities. We


shall bring forward proposals under which funds will be made available to providers of education to carry out imaginative and cost-effective projects aimed at improving accessibility. We envisage that the new scheme will encourage voluntary involvement by the local community. We shall consult on the details of the scheme.
In addition, the Department for Education will shortly consult on the revision of its constructional standards to bring them into line with those set out in the current building regulations. That means that all new schools and extensions would be fully accessible to disabled people.
Scotland has its own extensive provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 for pupils with special educational needs. The Scottish Office will consider further ways of encouraging authorities and schools to improve access for pupils with disabilities through the normal capital allocation arrangements. In Scotland, schools are already subject to the relevant requirements of the building regulations.
All those measures will consolidate the improvements for children with special educational needs set out in the 1993 Act. They represent the Government's firm commitment to ensuring that every child with a disability gets full education opportunities and to steadily improving access in schools.
Transport is another crucial area for disabled people. The new right of access will cover transport infrastructure, for example, railway stations and bus terminals, but will not apply to transport vehicles. The sensible way to improve accessibility must be to do it when new vehicles are purchased. Huge progress has already been made in that way, for example, by improving the accessibility of inter-city services, airports and London taxis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is anxious to ensure that progress continues. In addition, he will strengthen the guidance issued to local authorities in preparing their annual transport policies and programmes to give greater weight to the needs of people with disabilities.
It is vital that we take further steps towards making fully accessible the most commonly used form of public transport—the bus. The Government intend to ensure that all new buses will be of low-floor construction, as far as technically feasible. The effect will be that, over an agreed time frame, an increasing proportion of buses will be fully accessible to wheelchair users as well as more readily accessible to all other passengers with mobility problems. We shall, of course, need to take full account of European legislation. A draft directive on bus construction is already under discussion and we shall make our case vigorously.
The objective of our package is to give disabled people more power over their own lives. So I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce today that we intend to take a new power for social services authorities and, in Scotland, social work departments, to make cash payments to disabled people who request them in lieu of community care services. I believe that that new departure will be widely welcomed. It will enable disabled people to control far more actively how and by whom the care that they need is delivered.
Further details of all our proposals will be included in a detailed policy statement to be published, in addition to a Bill, in the near future.
In presenting this package, the Government are building on an already impressive record of helping disabled people. The steps that I have announced today will involve millions of people in taking positive action to tackle the frustration that disabled people encounter in attempting to do the things that many of us take for granted.
We are guided by one overriding belief: that it is the duty of society as a whole to enable disabled people to play a full part in national life, and to help them and us to make the best use of their talents. Recognition of that makes good sense for disabled people, good sense for our economy and good sense for the nation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Minister for his statement, long awaited as it was. After such a road-to-Damascus conversion, was not it ungenerous of the Prime Minister on Wednesday last week, and the Secretary of State for Social Security on Tuesday, to say not a word about the hugely important role played first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)?
Will the Minister take this opportunity to thank the many individuals, groups and organisations that took part in the consultation? Given the distance moved by the Government since the shameful episode during the previous Session, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) will no doubt recall, does the Minister agree that those who took part in the public campaign can rightly be proud of all their achievements?
So, where is the Bill and what does it contain? The Minister has just confirmed that it will be published in the not too distant future, and that it will tackle the gross unfairness of the discrimination endured by disabled people in Britain today; indeed, he keeps reminding us that it will be the greatest-ever piece of legislation of its kind. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) views the Minister's position with some envy: his own private views were probably much more progressive than any that we shall hear from the Government today or later.
I do not know about the Minister, but I have seen the sort of Bill that I believe the House and the country want; indeed, I have it in my hand. It is entitled the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Hon. Members may remember it. I am willing to hand it over: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe would not mind. I hope that the Minister intends something along those lines. Every clause of that Bill was supported by a majority of right hon. and hon. Members; it had wide cross-party support. Comprehensive civil rights for all members of society represent the only solution. That is the only legislation that disabled people will want.
Does the Minister appreciate that the House is entitled to be cynical, given that the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—with which I had something to do—has not yet been fully implemented? At least Lady Thatcher went some way towards that by implementing half the Bill. The present Prime Minister, himself a former Minister for the disabled, has not so much as lifted a finger to introduce one line of that 1986 Act.
Can we trust the Government to deliver now, regardless of the fine words that we have just heard? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I think that the nation will require something much more credible than the response that I have just received. They may wonder whether the Government will even be in office after Monday, let alone give positive replies today.
What is not good enough, and is not wanted, is a half-hearted approach—recognising the problems, sympathising with those who are discriminated against, but lacking the vision to do anything about it. What we are asking for—and we know that we have the support of organisations of and for disabled people—is a comprehensive civil rights Bill, enforceable with legal remedies. Will the Minister tell us today whether he agrees with that objective?
The Minister mentioned employment. Does he agree that disabled people need the full protection that can be provided only by a commission with enforceable legal powers to investigate cases of discrimination? Does the Minister appreciate that we will not support the scrapping of the quota system against the wishes of disabled people unless there are adequate safeguards in place such as legal aid on this and other matters, so that disabled people can pursue their rights through the courts? Can the Minister give us the Government's view on access to the courts? Can he expand on what he said about education, transport and health? Those are vital issues to people with disabilities and their carers.
Since the Government are now, belatedly, addressing themselves to community care, does the Minister accept that the chaos that Sir Roy Griffiths identified is now all the greater? Can he tell us how the Government are planning to respond to that growing problem, which is rooted in poverty and in the absence of resources?
Does the Minister accept that there must be a commission—not a well-intentioned talking shop with no legal powers of enforcement—to endorse the rights of people with disabilities? Disabled people deserve nothing less than a full disabled rights commission with the same powers as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. Anything less would merely sustain the present second-class treatment. Does he agree that such a commission is crucial if legislation is not to be ignored in the same way as the 1986 Act was ignored, although it was so crucial to advocacy, representation and consultation? Does he further agree that that is necessary in any reasonable approach to community care?
A climbdown on this and a U-turn on that is no way to forge progressive and substantive policy in this area. Surely the Minister appreciates that, above all, disabled people can desire only to have the statutory right to be treated as full members of the community and to be given the opportunity to participate in and, most importantly, to contribute to national life. Therefore, does he agree that only comprehensive civil rights legislation can achieve that aim? Is he encouraged by the simple fact, which was shown in Scope's excellent report—the Minister was at its presentation the other day—that the objectives are shared fully by an overwhelming majority in the House?

Mr. Hague: I accept the hon. Gentleman's words of welcome, where there were words of welcome, for what

we have done. When the Opposition begin by trying to share out the credit and talk about the distance that the Government have moved, we know that there is not a lot to criticise in what the Government have announced. The hon. Gentleman then went on as if the statement had not been delivered. He called for anti-discrimination legislation on a wide scale. This is anti-discrimination legislation. What I have announced is the Government's intention to produce anti-discrimination legislation, which will range across employment in all sectors of our economy and which will bring rights of access to goods and services in most areas of our national life, with the one or two exceptions that I have outlined.
This is comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, because in the areas that are missed out we are taking alternative action, often through legislation or other regulations as in education and transport. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would deliver. Yes, we certainly shall. There will be a Bill within the next few weeks, as well as a further detailed, written policy statement that will clarify any remaining issues.
I was concerned about the one point in our proposals that the hon. Gentleman found to criticise; it arose when he called for the establishment of a commission. Of course, the Government want legislation to be observed and redress to be easily available. We intend to achieve that without creating an expensive bureaucracy. That is why we intend to have conciliation services and readily available means of redress without setting up another bureaucracy to preside over the whole operation.
The hon. Gentleman talked about community care and the resources that are devoted to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has presided over a vast increase in resources devoted to community care, which puts local authorities in a good position to introduce the provisions on direct payment that I outlined. He ended his remarks by quoting the Scope report, in which, I must remind him, 75 per cent. of Members of Parliament said that they backed an approach that combined education, persuasion and legislation. That is the Government's approach.

Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept our ungrudging congratulations on introducing a set of measures that are far wider than the original proposals published earlier this year in the consultation document? Will he reassure disabled people that the Government will ensure that the legislation will reach the statute book and become law during this parliamentary Session?

Mr. Hague: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's words of welcome. I assure him and disabled people throughout the country that the Government intend to produce a Bill shortly and to take it through to the statute book.

Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome a number of points in the statement, particularly the assurance that the Secretary of State for Health will bring in direct payments for disabled people so that they can purchase their own care. Is the Minister seriously suggesting, however, that he will receive wholehearted support from disabled people across the country, because the Bill does not outlaw discrimination in all its aspects? In particular, the body that will be set up to monitor the new legislation will be toothless. It will not have the same teeth as the


Commission for Racial Equality. Will the Minister guarantee that the transport and education Bills that will be introduced will contain guaranteed rights of access? Will he give an assurance that the statement is not a cynical attempt to prevent true legislation on civil rights for disabled persons being introduced in a private Member's Bill?

Mr. Hague: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words of welcome. The package of measures deserves the wholehearted support of disabled people throughout the country as well as of the House, because it tackles discrimination problems across the board with a mixture of legislation and other measures. I believe that those measures should have an extremely wide welcome.
Again, on the point about a commission, the Government believe that it should be possible to enforce legislation without setting up an expensive bureaucracy to police it. In the coming years, however, we shall want to ensure that that legislation is properly enforced and that people have an adequate means of redress. I take the hon. Lady's words of welcome. More specific details about right of access will be available in our detailed policy document. As I explained in my statement, the right of access that we propose will be just that, provided the physical alterations required are readily achievable and do not create undue hardship to bring them about.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. As with the earlier statement, I make a plea for hon. Members to ask one brisk question and for answers to be equally brisk.

Mrs. Marion Roe: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his statement? Will he confirm that the proposals that he has announced go considerably further than those contained in the Government's consultation document, especially those on transport and education and the statutory right against discrimination in the workplace?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These proposals go significantly further than anything that we have had before. In putting together the proposals, we responded to many of the responses to our consultation document. We listened carefully to everyone with an interest in the needs of disabled people and that led us to announce this package today.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for recalling the origins of this change of Government policy in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that I drafted three years ago. Is the Minister aware that if he is right in claiming that this is the biggest ever advance for disabled people, it could have been made in 1991 when I first promoted that Bill? Is he further aware that disabled people and their organisations have today already condemned the scrapping of the employment 3 per cent. quota and that they will resist any proposals that offer them less than the provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? He must have made an estimate of the cost of his proposals—what is it?

Mr. Hague: When the Bill is published, we shall of course publish with it a compliance cost assessment setting out the estimated costs of the provisions. However, many matters that will affect the cost are open to further

consultation, especially things to which I have already referred such as the financial limit on the cost of physical alterations to premises and the length of time over which the proposals will be phased in. There will, therefore, be quite a range of possible costings and they will be published with the Bill as soon as it is available.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on this package of measures, especially those involving education and employment, which will ensure a much greater part in our national life for disabled people. Will he ensure that when he comes to set up the disability council and to decide the pattern of cash payments, which is an immensely important step in the right direction, he will involve the organisations of and for disabled people, because even those who may have been critical of the Government in recent years have a great deal to contribute to his plans in the future?

Mr. Hague: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I certainly propose to involve organisations of and for disabled people in consultation on every aspect of the proposals that I have listed where further consultation is necessary. Those organisations have played an important part in shaping the Government's thinking and I hope that they will continue to do so.

Mr. Roger Berry: I note the significant change in the Government's position since they blocked the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and I cannot wait to read the compliance cost assessment. Does the Minister recognise that his proposals are still significantly different from those made by disabled people themselves? Why is it that we have an Equal Opportunities Commission and a Commission for Racial Equality to deal with discrimination on grounds of gender and race and that those organisations have investigative and enforcement powers that the Government are not prepared to provide for disabled people? Why should not disabled people receive the same treatment as women and black people in respect of discrimination?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman could have managed a bit more of a welcome for many of the things for which he has campaigned for a long time. On his specific question, I have already said that we want legislation to be observed and redress to be easily available, and we believe that that can be achieved without an expensive bureaucracy. Legislation in this sphere is far more complex than it was in matters of sex and race. Many people and businesses will be involved in positive action and expenditure in a way that they are not when dealing with discrimination on the grounds of sex and race. It is a complex comparison; we cannot simply draw an analogy between those issues. We believe that we can make the proposals work as I have outlined, and we are determined that they shall work.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend most warmly on producing a real landmark, which goes much further than many people thought possible in providing real opportunities for the disabled. Does he agree that, by scrapping the old quota system, he will encourage much more enlightened


employment practices and more job opportunities? Will he do all in his power to ensure that the public sector plays its full part?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. The public sector already has a better record of employing disabled people than the private sector, and the civil service is adopting a programme of action to bolster that record further. He is right about the quota—it is unworkable. It has not worked at all well. History shows that attempts to enforce it have tended to lead to more disabled people in work registering, so that employers can get nearer to meeting the quota, rather than to more disabled people being brought into work. This will be a new approach, which will be much more effective in securing employment for disabled people.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: It would be churlish not to welcome the proposed legislation as a significant step forward. The fact that the Government have changed their policy is a tribute to all those, on both sides of the House, who campaigned. We shall doubtless have to campaign a lot more to finish the job.
The Minister stated that a
statutory right to non-discrimination will be applied in the context of employment.
The phrase was used only in that context. Does that imply that there is no statutory right to non-discrimination anywhere outside employment? What would be the position in a place of leisure, such as a cinema, where access was possible but there was discrimination against the disabled on the pretext of, for example, fire controls? Will that be covered in the legislation?

Mr. Hague: I think that I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I did not use the phrase about rights of access, but we intend to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people when providing goods and services. That would be subject to the various provisions that I outlined, such as the changes being readily achievable, not causing undue hardship and being subject to a financial limit and a phasing-in period. The legislation is certainly anti-discriminatory in the way that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I thank the Minister for his personal determination to end the injustice, indignity and waste that discrimination causes and congratulate him on the important progress that he has announced, which builds on the work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy to ensure that disabled people do not experience unjustified discrimination in any sector?
Does he accept that disabled people—even more than other people—may find it difficult to sustain their legal rights without a powerful organisation to champion them? May I add my request for him to consider further the case for a disability rights commission, with powers not only to advise, but to investigate, conciliate and, from time to time where necessary, to enforce?

Mr. Hague: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's words of welcome. I can confirm that it is our objective to eliminate discrimination across the board and to do so sensibly and practically. I ask him not to underrate the

role that we envisage for the national disability council, which ought to be a powerful voice on such issues and will be able to report to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People about discrimination and to recommend further courses of action. It will be the powerful voice that he is seeking.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Following the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), will he clarify exactly whether the Government have really had a change of heart? Do the Government now believe that disabled people have a basic and fundamental right to be full and equal citizens? If so, why was his statement peppered with so many conditions and qualifications?

Mr. Hague: It is extremely clear from my statement that the Government want to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and want disabled people to be able to play a full part in every aspect of our national life—whether in work, study, travel or leisure. We have to secure that objective in a practical and sensible way—a way that takes other people along with it rather than causing a backlash and a way that is affordable for everyone else in our national economy. That is why I stipulated some of the provisions that I outlined.
The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, which is often held up as an example of successful legislation on these matters, also uses the terms "readily achievable", "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship". Those terms are no strangers to anti-discrimination legislation throughout the world.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While the Bill has yet to be published, it certainly appears that my hon. Friend has made a detailed and comprehensive statement on Government policy for the disabled and on disabled person's rights. I congratulate the Government on that. The lifts at Macclesfield station have broken down and been out of order for more than two years. Will the legislation set out in his statement enable me to approach Railtrack and demand that it repair or replace those lifts without delay?

Mr. Hague: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome. I would be surprised if the legislation did not assist him in that regard, although he might want to sort out the problem before the it reaches the statute book. I am sure that he will be extremely effective in doing so.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the decided improvement in the Government's position, but as the legislation deals with discrimination and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was consulted, why is a Bill being introduced for the rest of the nation, but legislation is only being proposed for Northern Ireland? Time and again, such legislation has come to Northern Ireland years afterwards. Is it the luddite minority in the Northern Ireland civil service, or the Maryfield mafia, which is preventing the House from granting full rights to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hague: Again, I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's welcome. He may be reading more into the distinction that I made about Northern Ireland than he should. There is no wish to delay similar legislation for Northern Ireland. The Bill will include a clause to provide for such legislation there and I will communicate to my


right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the hon. Gentleman said about urgency.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: On behalf of disabled people in Norwich, and all those organisations in Norwich and the surrounding area that help and support them, may I join the general welcome for the announcement? May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Remploy factories and their successes? I hope that, after conversations with his colleagues at the Department of Employment, he will soon be able to explain the implications of his new policies, set out in the announcement, for those factories and the excellent support that they give disabled people in Norwich and elsewhere.

Mr. Hague: My package does not specifically affect Remploy factories, where excellent work is done, as my hon. Friend said. The Government hope that that excellent work will continue. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment have worked hard in recent months to ensure that opportunities are available to Remploy. In the near future, they will produce proposals for a replacement for the priority suppliers scheme as well.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the progress that the proposed legislation represents, but the campaign will continue until we are all satisfied that no disabled person is discriminated against in any way. Does the Minister envisage a phasing-in period that will cover all aspects of the legislation, or will it vary according to the aspects that he delineated?

Mr. Hague: I agree with the hon. Lady that we must all work hard until discrimination against disabled people is completely eliminated. That is the intention of the Government as well as the intention of the Opposition.
The phasing-in periods will be set out as a range of options for consultation when we produce our more detailed written policy statement. That will refer especially to the rights of access to goods and services. Some of the other things that I have mentioned may have a different phasing-in period—for example, we envisage the introduction of low-floor buses which will be accessible to wheelchair users being done on a replacement basis. When a new bus is purchased, it will meet the new specifications. That phasing-in period may be determined by the purchasing patterns of bus service providers rather than by any legislative cut-off.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome what the Minister has said today. Let me take him back to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Will this legislation proceed in Northern Ireland by means of a Bill or will there simply be an Order in Council? If the latter is the way in which legislation on such an important subject will be treated in Northern Ireland, I trust that the Minister and the Government will have second thoughts.

Mr. Hague: I take full note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I will, of course, discuss the position with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I welcome the right of redress in employment cases, but does the

Minister accept that the best way to combat discrimination in employment is by the development of equal opportunity practices and procedures? Is he aware that, under the privatisation process, it would be unlawful for central Government and local government, under the Local Government Act 1988 and European directives, to place those requirements in the contracting procedures? Will the Minister now consider a clause, similar to that in section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which would place on central Government and local government a statutory duty in carrying out those procedures?

Mr. Hague: It is intended that the employment rights will extend across the economy to everyone except employers with fewer than 20 employees. I am not sure that the difficulty the hon. Gentleman mentions will arise. I shall look at the matter further as we produce our detailed policy statement.

Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my hon. Friend's determination—indeed, enthusiasm—to tackle the difficult issue of discrimination against disabled people and I especially welcome the fact that we are to have a Government Bill rather than a private Member's Bill in this Session. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, if there is a conflict with other laws passed in this House, the rights of disabled people will be paramount? In terms of access to cinemas, for example, disabled people are often turned away simply because there are already two other people in wheelchairs present. Such a situation is particularly offensive. Does my hon. Friend believe that the proposed legislation will deal with that situation effectively?

Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals. It certainly is not the Government's intention that the proposals I have set out today should be frustrated by other provisions. When we come to the Bill, we shall obviously have to resolve what happens when there is a conflict between the need to comply with it and the need to comply with existing statutory provisions. We shall certainly seek to ensure that the provisions that I have set out today come into effect and are effective across the board.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it has not gone unnoticed by disabled people and others that in his statement today, he said that the legislation would include phraseology such as "readily achievable" and "technically feasible"—God knows how many "ifs" and "buts"—which well-paid lawyers representing big business will use to drive a coach and horses through the legislation? Why does not the Minister do the decent thing? If he wants to do an about-face, he should pick up the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and carry that into law.

Mr. Hague: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that phrases such as "readily achievable" and "undue hardship" have been included in legislation in the United States. I utter phrases such as "where it is technically feasible" because one of the disturbing aspects of the legislation in the United States was that, where it had been imposed as blanket legislation on bus transport, without regard to it being technically feasible, it had resulted in the loss of services altogether in rural areas. That was of no use to anyone. It is obvious that, in sectors such as public transport, one has to do things as they are


technically feasible otherwise one gets into a terrible mess. That is the position in which the hon. Gentleman would normally leave us.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillian: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on this detailed and complex proposed legislation. On the education front, I welcome the proposal to give education providers an incentive to improve accessibility. Can my hon. Friend help the House by confirming that the proposed accessibility audit for schools will start shortly?

Mr. Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Department for Education will start the audit of accessibility of schools within the next few months. It aims to complete it during next year and we shall then be in a much better position to judge how much further action is needed.

Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister set out his plans to introduce what he described as comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation under which disabled people who face discrimination would have the same remedies that other groups have under existing legislation. Does he accept that the bulk of the criticism that has come from those who have tried to work the existing anti-discrimination legislation has been about the derisory level of legal redress and compensation and of the punitive penalties—the things that are supposed to deter those who conduct acts of wilful discrimination? Will he go back and look at those three issues to ensure that disabled people can expect something that breaks free from the derisory and in many ways still discriminatory elements built into the present legislation?

Mr. Hague: My intention is to frame the legislation and its accompanying arrangements in such a way that litigation will not become necessary, in so far as that is possible. We shall create conciliation services, which will avoid litigation in the majority of disputes, and we shall ensure that the means of redress, when it comes to litigation, are available without recourse, in the majority of cases, to expensive litigation or to the use of legal advice. That will be our objective. We are determined to ensure that the legislation works in practice.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that not the least important part of the proposed legislation, which I also warmly welcome, is that it can help to change public attitudes towards disabled people so that they can play their full part in society and make a contribution to the community? I and many others believe that, in due course, that will outweigh the costs entailed by the legislation.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that all service providers will have to think about disabled people and will have to address the question of a right of access to goods and services will, in itself, do a great deal to change attitudes towards disabled people. We must remember that legislation is not the whole answer to the question. We must change attitudes quite apart from legislation. Therefore, in the coming weeks, the

Government will launch a national awareness campaign on the particular problems and needs of disabled people, and on the obstacles that they can face in their daily lives.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have been lucky enough to finish fifth in the private Members' ballot. I am minded to introduce the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill back into the House. One thing that would prevent that would be someone who came before me in the ballot choosing that Bill. Otherwise, it is really up to the Minister to tell me now why the legislation that he is propounding is adequate to meet the proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Are not his proposals limited and qualified, welcome though they are? Does not the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill go far beyond them? That Bill should be introduced again, not least to continue to push the Government a bit further along the track they have entered.

Mr. Hague: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune. The objective of the proposals that I have outlined today is exactly the same as the objective of those who have campaigned for legislation on the matter in the past. That objective is to eliminate discrimination against disabled people throughout our society. The legislation that I have proposed is broad. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will look carefully at the legislation when it is produced, because it will assure them—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: And hon. Ladies.

Mr. Hague: And hon. Ladies. It will assure them of the breadth of what is intended. The Government believe that, in some sectors, it is more sensible and practical to proceed in a different way, but those sectors are quite limited in scope. The measures in this package, taken together, will bring an end to discrimination against disabled people. The House should make no mistake about the purpose of this package.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a truly comprehensive package. I know that it will be very much appreciated—certainly by the Sutton Alliance of Disabled People, and indeed, by the vast majority of those who supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In particular, they will appreciate his proposals to bring in the low-level platforms on buses. However, does he agree that some issues can be tackled by using plain common sense rather than blanket legislation?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Plain common sense is exactly what is called for in this case and plain common sense characterises the proposals that I have put before the House today. We need legislation to tackle discrimination against disabled people, but we need to bring it into force in a sensible and practical way. In other sectors, such as public transport, which I have already mentioned, it is plain common sense that the best way in which to tackle the problems is on a replacement basis as new rolling stock or new vehicles are purchased. Common sense is exactly what is called for, and it runs throughout these proposals.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Minister join me in congratulating disabled people and their organisations on the political pressure that they have exerted since I introduced the first comprehensive anti-discrimination Bill in this House


exactly 11 years ago this month? The Leader of the House—who is present—told us while in a previous post that education and persuasion were all that was required.I am pleased to see at least a partial result of the campaign by those disabled people, which shows that political pressure sometimes works, even with a very slow-moving Government. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will cover places of entertainment and public resort and that it will give a service to blind people with guide dogs?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of education and persuasion. A mixture of education, persuasion and legislation has always been, and remains, the Government's approach. We are, of course, proposing more legislation today than we have proposed in the past. I have no wish to hog the credit for that. Conservative Members would be happy to share it with Opposition Members and with many people outside the House who have raised the issue of disabled people. I can confirm that the right of access for goods and services will be intended to apply to places of public entertainment and the other places that he mentioned. Of course, within the definition of disabled people, the Bill will also apply to people with guide dogs.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister explain why he has chosen to exclude firms which employ fewer than 20 people, given that they account for 96 out of every 100 firms in the country and that they employee 37 in every 100 people? As for the enforcement of anti-discrimination rights, will he extend legal aid to disabled people on low incomes? Otherwise, those rights will remain illusory. Will he ensure that, in the proposed Bill, the onus of industrial tribunals will be on an employer or service provider showing that discrimination did not take place, rather than on the disabled applicant showing that it did? Will he ensure that the Bill also tackles indirect discrimination, such as employers asking job applicants for driving licences when no such skill is needed in the job for which they are applying?

Mr. Hague: I can confirm that it is our intention to tackle instances of indirect discrimination, although we may need to structure the Bill in such a way as to include a power to regulate for specific instances of indirect discrimination so that there is no doubt what we are talking about. The hon. Gentleman asked about the provision for fewer than 20 employees. More than 80 per cent. of the employees in the country work for firms with more than 20 employees. Other legislation in the rest of the world includes provisions for minimum numbers of people. Employment provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 do not apply to firms with fewer than 15 employees. The reason is that many small firms do not have the personnel functions or specialist advice to enable them to cope easily with such provisions. We do not wish to add to the burdens on small businesses, while still providing for the vast majority in employment.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about means of redress. We have no plans to change the general rules on provision of legal aid, but I reiterate that we intend to provide conciliation services and effective means of redress for all the rights that I have outlined today. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not have given a better welcome to the proposals. I know that he is enthusiastic for

anti-discrimination lesislation. That is what the Government are now bringing forward and it deserves the whole-hearted support of the House.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Motion to take note of documents relating to the 1995 budget of the European communities. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER—My right hon. and learned.Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 30 NOVEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 1 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 2 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 5 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate which will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 6 December.
[Monday 28 November:
European Communities (Finance) Bill—Relevant European Community documents: 1. European Communities Act 1972 (as amended) 2. 1994 Own Resources Decision 3. 1988 Own Resources Decision 4. 1985 Own Resources Decision 5. 1992 Edinburgh European Council Conclusions 6. 1993 Inter-Institutional Agreement 7. 1994 Budget Discipline Decision 8. 1994 Council Regulation No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions 9. 1994 Council Regulation No 2729/94 amending Regulation No 1552/89 10. 1994 Council Regulation No 2730/94 amending the Financial Regulation 11. 1993 Structural Fund Regulation 12. 1993 Cohesion Fund Regulation 13. 1994 Working Methods Paper on the UK Abatement 14. Executive Summary of the European Court of Auditors report on implementation of the 1993 EC Budget.
Floor of the House—Relevant European Community documents: a) COM(94)400 1995 Budget, b) 8782/94 1995 Budget, c) 9943/94 Adjustment of the financial perspective with a view to enlargement of the European Union, d) Unnumbered Document-European Parliament Minutes for the Sitting of the 27 October 1994 relating to the Draft General Budget for the European Union for the financial year 1995, e) Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum-Council Decisions on the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft General Budget of the European Community for the financial year 1995; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: a) HC 48-xxiii (1993–94), b) HC 48-xxvi (1993–94), c) No report, d) No report, e) No report.
Tuesday 29 November:
Chancellor of the Exchequer—Budget statement: The following documents are relevant to the Budget debate: Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 22 September 1994 relating to the

Commission opinion on the existence of an excessive deficit in the United Kingdom and recommendation for a Council decision, drawn up in accordance with Article 104c.5 and Article 104c.6 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 14 October 1994 relating to the Council recommendations to the United Kingdom with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive Government deficit, prepared by the Commission in acceptance with Article 104c.7 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. On Monday, in the event of the Leader of the House being successful in brow-beating Conservative Members into the Lobby and, as usual, a rebellion petering out, and the European Communities (Finance) Bill receiving a Second Reading, will it be committed to a Committee of the whole House as befits a measure of such importance as—I think—the House would wish?
If the Leader of the House remains in office after Monday's vote, will he find time, as a matter of urgency, to debate the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report and its recommendation of a code of conduct, which would be very useful as a buffer against ministerial party political excesses? It would be of great advantage to everyone to have an early debate on that issue.
Will the Leader of the House also tell us when he expects to find time to debate the Jopling report and the proposals to which he referred in his speech last night?

Mr. Newton: Let me take the latter two questions first. The hon. Lady well knows my desire to find time to debate the proposals that she and I have been able to agree—I think that is now the right word—for the Jopling report. However, she will equally understand that, with the business immediately facing the House and with five days—which, I may say, responds to the wishes of the Opposition—being allocated to debate the Budget, it would be difficult for me to make a promise of a debate before the week after next—at the earliest—on either of the matters that she has raised. I cannot give a commitment even on that at this stage.
The hon. Lady's first question is, of course, a matter for the House, but it is a matter of record that, normally, the practice for such Bills has been to discuss them in a Committee of the whole House.

Sir Norman Fowler: One of the most important measures announced in the Queen's Speech was the Pensions Bill to protect the interests of occupational pensioners. When will that be introduced? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will start its progress in this House?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, above all, knows that the Bill will be long and complex. Its preparation is not yet completed and, at this stage, I cannot give a definite date for its expected introduction. We are still considering, in various parts of the legislative programme, precisely how the balance as to where Bills should originate will fall between the two Houses.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it has been a long time since the House debated agriculture in Government time? Is he aware that hon. Members on both


sides of the House have hill livestock farmers in their constituencies who are under some pressure? The new budgetary format means that hill livestock compensatory allowance payments will be made in the aftermath of the Budget statement. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could give us some idea of when an agriculture debate will take place and when the announcements about HLCA payments will be made.

Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot be as specific as the hon. Gentleman would evidently like me to be. However, I do not think that his questions will go unanswered for very long.

Mr. Rupert Allason: rose—

Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about unregulated DSS hostels and houses in multiple occupation, which continue to have a thoroughly damaging effect on the quality of life and the economy of many seaside resorts throughout the country? Is he aware that this week the Government issued a consultation paper about a potential licensing system for houses in multiple occupation? Does he understand that many of my constituents want to see a self-financing licensing system for all existing hostels introduced as soon as possible?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that I am aware of the consultation paper. For reasons that I have already touched on, I cannot promise an early debate. However, I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be in the House to answer questions next Wednesday, which may give my hon. Friend an opportunity to underline his concern.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland next week about his outrageous proposal to publish death rate league tables for Scottish hospitals? Bearing in mind that a spokesperson for the Secretary of State for Health is quoted as saying that she has no intention of following the Scottish example because she has no enthusiasm for "counting dead bodies", why on earth is the Secretary of.State for Scotland pursuing such a ghoulish policy?

Mr. Newton: I understand that the clinical outcome indicators report, which I think underlines what the hon. Gentleman referred to, has been prepared by a working group of health professionals, public health doctors and NHS managers. While I understand why the hon. Gentleman used his phrase, the proper way to describe the process is "clinical outcomes", and of course a large number of outcomes are highly successful.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Could we have an early debate on the subject of social services, bearing in mind that certain shire counties, including Gloucestershire, have been badly served by a change in the funding formula? It is rather difficult to explain to our constituents why help is being withdrawn at a time when we are about to devote billions, seemingly uncounted, to extend Italian motorway systems.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has commented about social services in recent times— most recently in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which we concluded yesterday. The hon.

Gentleman will know that substantial additional sums of money have been allocated in connection with the development of community care policy.

Rev. Marlin Smyth: The Minister will remember that I asked last week for a statement about sudden infant deaths. The Minister had an opportunity to make some reference to the subject this week, but did not do so. I press the Minister to give the House an opportunity to explore the matter.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman, rather uncharacteristically, is being a little unfair. That is clearly a matter which requires careful professional advice. He will know that last Friday the chief medical officer convened an expert working group to consider what had been said on the "The Cook Report". It has advised that the programme provided nothing to invalidate earlier reports, but raised questions which need proper investigation, and further work is progressing urgently. I think that that is probably the right way to approach this difficult matter.

Mr. Bill Walker: Given that we are debating European Community finances on Monday, can the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues give serious consideration to how the House, the Parliament, and indeed the United Kingdom, can contribute to monitoring and examining the colossal fraud that is perpetrated throughout the European Community? Would not Monday's debate provide an opportunity to suggest some positive ways to deal with the problem?

Mr. Newton: From the way in which my hon. Friend has phrased his question, I know that he needs no reminder from me that the background of the Court of Auditors report deals in part with the efforts that the Government have made to ensure that the Community tries harder to combat fraud. The British Government need no urging in their attempts to ensure that the Community's efforts are reinforced and supported in every possible way. I have no doubt that it is a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will advert in the debate on Monday.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Taking on board the fact that the House will have the opportunity later tonight to vote on ministerial and other salaries, will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the level of remuneration for elected local councillors from all political parties who often work long and hard for very little reward?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to find time for a debate, but I will bring the concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I think is the appropriate Minister to refer it to, as well as to the attention of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Are not there two main subjects of discussion in connection with the European finance Bill debate on Monday: first, the question of whether it is a matter of confidence, and all that flows from that; and, secondly, the financial arguments, which could properly be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Is not it the case that the subject should be dealt with in a two-day debate, and that the first day should begin with the Prime Minister explaining how he regards it as a matter of confidence? Is not it unsatisfactory for this debate to be truncated into one day, which is overshadowed by the Budget, so as to ensure that the constitutional impropriety of the Government is given as little attention as possible?

Mr. Newton: I must make one point to my hon. Friend, in view of the phrasing of his question. The question about whether this is a matter of confidence is not open for discussion: it is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, a matter of confidence.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister both explained and made clear the position on who should participate in the debate in his Question Time only a couple of hours ago. Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred repeatedly to the Bill's financial details in recent days. He has made it quite clear— as no doubt he will on Monday— that the effects of the Bill in implementing the Edinburgh agreement will amount to £75 million next year, rising to £250 million by the end of the century.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware that the compensation recovery unit of the DSS is clawing back vast amounts of compensation awarded for ill health and injury? For example, a Glasgow man who was awarded £30,000 ended up with £2,000 at a time when he was at his very lowest ebb in financial and health terms. In the interests of justice, will the Minister institute an early debate on a subject which affects a large number of innocent individuals and groups throughout the country?

Mr. Newton: As a former DSS Minister, I know that the principle of compensation recovery is a long-established one. I do not think that anyone looking at it would argue seriously that state benefits should replace permanently compensation due from a party found guilty of negligence. The current scheme ensures that the cost of compensation falls where it should: on the person who has been negligent.

Sir Irvine Patrick: May we have an early debate on the free accommodation provided for Sheffield Labour Members of Parliament and the Sheffield Member of the European Parliament so that we may ascertain whether that practice is widespread or just a local difficulty? The matter was highlighted in yesterday's issue of The Star in Sheffield.

Mr. Newton: I shall obviously consider my hon. Friend's point. However, he will have some opportunity to raise the matter next week because, as I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be here to answer questions on Wednesday. I think that we can also anticipate in the latter part of next week the annual revenue support grant statement.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I apologise for trying to butt in at the start of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). My right hon Friend will be aware that, this afternoon, the Prime

Minister said that the leakage of classified information that was reported today in The Independent had not originated from British Telecom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a serious leakage of highly classified information and that if British Telecom denies that it was responsible for that leak, it must be a matter for a statement by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will probably understand that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, which was clearly based on urgent but careful inquiry. However, I shall bring my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will there be a debate at any time next week on "The Health of the Nation" statement, which was made by the Secretary of State for Health? A debate is especially important in view of the dangerous development of suicide squads—these religious cults—which seems to have spread to six Cabinet members. Is the Leader of the House one of the six? I can tell him that if they intend to start blowing people up, we are not going with them.

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman were going with us, it might tempt some of us. Beyond that, I cannot add to what has been said.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Given that, after the debate on Monday, the Whip may well be withdrawn from a score or so of my right hon. Friend's hon. Friends, would that score or so constitute a political party and would it be entitled to facilities in the House and to public money?

Madam Speaker: Order. Those are internal matters.

Mr. Marlow: If, at a later stage, the Government were to table an amendment and the new, improved Conservative party opposed it, would the doctrine of collegiate, corporate Cabinet Gotterdammerung still apply?

Mr. Newton: I shall probably be pulled up for saying that I did not hear a request for a debate, Madam Speaker. If there had been such a request, I would have said that I could not find time for it.

Mr. William McKelvey: During this spell of mild weather, the Leader of the House might be forgiven for forgetting about the poor, the disabled and the elderly who will suffer during the winter. Is not it time that we had a debate on that matter so that we can discuss legislation to put in place a properly constituted and adequate cold climate payment?

Mr. Newton: I have been familiar with those matters for many years because of my time as a social security Minister. In a brief answer, I shall not attempt to rehearse all the difficulties. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to what has been said.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Given what the Lord President said yesterday evening about the Jopling report and the progress that he hopes to make on it, and bearing in mind that yesterday evening he told us


when he expected the Easter recess to start, is he aware that Christmas comes before Easter? Can he give us any information about when that recess will start?

Mr. Newton: I am aware that Christmas comes before Easter and I wondered last night whether I might do a little better on that front. The best that I can do at the moment is to say that I expect the Christmas recess to start in the week before Christmas and to include Christmas day. I shall give further and better particulars when the scene becomes clearer. As I said last night, many hon. Members have spotted that Easter is about as late as it can get and thought that the recess would probably come before Easter. That was why I sought to make the matter clear but I am bound to say that my phrasing allowed for not having an Faster recess at all.

Lady Olga Maitland: Would my right hon. Friend consider a debate to mark next week's visit to this country by the Speaker of the Kuwaiti Parliament and seven of its Members? It would be an opportunity for the House to share its concern with them over the plight of 625 missing prisoners of war and detainees held in Iraq. These are crucial days and we hope that talks between Kuwait and Iraq are about to begin. It is important for the Iraqis to see that this country supports the allies in making sure that the Iraqis comply with UN resolutions and to realise that sanctions will not be lifted until all those issues are resolved.

Mr. Newton: Even without a debate—we recently had a full day on foreign affairs during the debate on the Address—I assure my hon. Friend that, on the matters that she mentions, as on others, the Government remain concerned to ensure compliance with all United Nations resolutions.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on NHS hospital trusts, thus giving the Labour party an opportunity to comment on an outburst by a leading light in my local Labour party who appeared to be claiming that his application to join a local NHS trust board was rejected because of his party's hostility to sensible Government reforms of the NHS?

Mr. Newton: If I were to provide time for debate on every unreasonable outburst by local Labour supporters, we should be debating nothing else.

BILL PRESENTED

CHILDREN (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Lang, supported by Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Sir George Young and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to reform the law of Scotland relating to children, to the adoption of children, and to young persons who as children have been looked after by local authorities; to make new provision as respects the relationship between parent and child and guardian and child in the law of Scotland; to make provision as respects residential establishments for children and as respects certain other residential establishments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 4].

Deregulation (Procedure)

Madam Speaker: All the matters that are covered in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will of course be in order during the debate on the Government motion so that we may debate them. If the House wishes to allow Divisions at the conclusion of proceedings, I propose to allow them on amendments (a) and (b).

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Standing Orders A and B below shall have effect and Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business), No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) shall be amended as set out below.
A. Deregulation Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Deregulation Committee, to examine every document containing proposals laid before the House under section 3, and every draft order proposed to be made under section 1, of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
(2) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every document containing proposals laid before the House under the said section 3, either—

(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House; or
(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals.

(3) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every draft order laid before the House under the said section 1, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved.
(4) The committee may report to the House on any matter arising from consideration of the said proposals or draft orders. (5)(A) In its consideration of proposals the committee shall consider in each case whether the proposals—

(a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;
(c) continue any necessary protection;
(d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
(e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe the amount of any such charge or payment;
(f) purport to have retrospective effect;
(g) give rise to doubts whether they are infra vires;
(h) require elucidation or appear to be defectively drafted;


(i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union. (B) In its consideration of draft orders, the committee shall consider in each case all the matters set out in sub-paragraph (A) above and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the Committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration. (6) The committee shall consist of sixteen members. (7) The quorum of the committee shall be five. (8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament. (9) The committee shall have power—




(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
(c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
(d) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House and to any committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders. (10) The committee and the sub-committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any select committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders and any sub-committee thereof. (11) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees. (12) The committee and the sub-committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being of the committee shall otherwise take part in the proceedings of the committee or sub-committee, or be counted in the quorum. (13) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting either—


(i) that any proposal should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House, or
(ii) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of any proposal, or
(iii) that any draft order should not be approved, it shall afford to any government department concerned an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department think fit. (14) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it report on every draft order not more than fifteen sitting days after the draft order was laid before the House, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division. B. Consideration of draft deregulation orders (1) If the Deregulation Committee has reported under paragraph (3) of Standing Order A (Deregulation Committee) that a draft order laid before the House under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 should be approved and a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to that effect, the question thereon shall—


(a) if the committee's recommendation was agreed without a division, be put forthwith;
(b) if the committee's recommendation was agreed after a division, be put not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion. (2) If the committee has reported that a draft order should not be approved, no motion to approve the draft order shall be made unless the House has previously resolved to disagree with the committee's report; the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion for such a resolution to disagree shall be put not later than three hours after their commencement; and the question shall be put forthwith on any motion thereafter made by a Minster of the Crown that such a draft order be approved.(3) Motions to which this order applies may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)
Line 14, after `procedure))', insert `or Standing Order B (Consideration of draft deregulation orders)'.

Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee))
Line 22, at end insert 'and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994'.
Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments)
Line 101, after 'Accounts', insert `and to the Deregulation Committee'.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which received Royal Assent on 3 November, contains a new power enabling Ministers to make orders to amend or repeal primary legislation that imposes a burden, provided that necessary protection is not removed. The Act provides that each deregulation proposal should be open to parliamentary scrutiny for a period of 60 days, and that subsequent draft deregulation orders require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in his place, because he and his Committee carried out much diligent work on this matter. The Procedure Committee has already conducted an inquiry into the parliamentary procedure that should apply to deregulation orders and has made recommendations on how the House should make use of the opportunity for scrutiny that the Act provides. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and to his colleagues for the speed and thoroughness of their inquiry and for the recommendations that they made. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the Government have accepted the great majority of those recommendations.The Committee's report and the Government's response were debated in the House on 11 May.
The purpose of the motion is to give effect to the undertakings that the Government have given and to incorporate the new scrutiny procedure in Standing Orders. The new Standing Order A establishes the new scrutiny committee, the Deregulation Committee, with power to report to the House both on the initial deregulation proposals laid before Parliament and on the draft orders introduced for affirmative resolution after the initial scrutiny process. The Committee will also have power to report on any matter arising from its consideration of deregulation proposals or orders.
When considering deregulation proposals, the Committee will be asked to consider, under paragraph (5) of the draft Standing Order, whether the use of delegated rather than primary legislation is appropriate in the circumstances; whether the proposal actually removes or reduces a burden; whether necessary protection is continued; whether adequate consultation has taken place; and whether the proposal takes appropriate account of that consultation. The Committee will also apply the criteria used by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and ask, for example, whether the proposal is ultra vires or defectively drafted. In addition, it will consider whether it infringes any EC obligations.
Under the terms of the Act, about which, hon. Members will remember, there was a good deal of discussion, the Committee will have 60 days, excluding recesses, in which to carry out whatever inquiries it considers necessary and to report to the House whether the proposals should be proceeded with in the same terms, in an amended form or not at all. If the Deregulation Committee were to report that a proposal should not be proceeded with, in normal circumstances, as the


Government have made clear on a number of occasions, we would expect to submit a revised proposal or to withdraw the proposal altogether.
When the proposal is brought back in its final form as a draft order subject to affirmative resolution, the Deregulation Committee will reconsider it, employing the same criteria as before, and consider the extent to which the Minister has taken account of the Committee's report on the first version of the proposal and of any other representations that may have been made. The Committee will then report within 15 sitting days on whether the House should approve the draft order.
The remaining provisions of the draft Standing Order deal with the Committee's powers. The Committee will have 16 members nominated for the duration of a Parliament and a quorum of five. It will have the usual powers of a Select Committee, including the powers to take evidence, to travel within the United Kingdom and to appoint specialist advisers.
In common with other Select Committees, it will not have the power to summon Ministers before it, but I am happy to repeat the assurance that the Government have already given the Procedure Committee: that Ministers with responsibility for a deregulation proposal will be anxious to assist the Deregulation Committee with its work. Frankly, I cannot envisage a time when a Minister would refuse to attend as a witness if his or her attendance were requested.
In addition to the usual powers, the Committee will have powers to appoint a sub-committee to communicate evidence to other Select Committees and to the equivalent Committee in another place and—something to which both Houses attach importance—to hold concurrent meetings with the Lords Committee. That seems a sensible way of avoiding two Committees covering the same ground with the same witnesses. It will also have the benefit of expert legal advice.
Following the Procedure Committee's recommendations, the draft Standing Order makes provision for hon. Members who are not members of the Deregulation Committee to take part in its questioning of witnesses. The Committee and its sub-Committee will have power to invite other hon. Members to attend evidence sessions, and those invited hon. Members will.be able to put questions to witnesses if they succeed in catching the Chairman's eye.
I am sure that the Committee will be able to devise appropriate ways of ensuring that hon. Members who express an interest in a particular deregulation proposal receive a invitation to attend relevant evidence sessions so that they can take advantage of the opportunities that the new procedure affords. Hon. Members will, of course, be able to give written evidence to the Committee and oral evidence if the Committee invites them to appear before it.
The final paragraphs of Standing Order A require the Deregulation Committee to take evidence from the Department concerned before making an adverse report and to report on each draft order not more than 15 sitting days after it was laid before the House.
The new Standing Order B governs proceedings in the House on draft deregulation orders after the Committee's consideration has finished. The procedure to be followed in relation to particular orders will depend on the nature of the Deregulation Committee's report. If the Committee

has approved a draft order unanimously, the motion to approve it will be decided forthwith in line with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. Hon. Members will already have had a chance to express their views at an earlier stage, not least through the procedures that I have just outlined, which allow them a role in the Deregulation Committee's evidence-taking. A measure that has received the unanimous approval of a relatiively large all-party committee after a thorough process of scrutiny is surely one that need not detain the House.
If the Committee approves a draft order, but its decision was not unanimous, there will be a debate of one and a half hours, which is, of course, what the Standing Orders provide for affirmative instruments generally.
If the Committee has recommended that a draft order should not be approved, the motion to approve it will not be able to be moved unless the House has resolved to disagree with the Committee's report. That would require a three-hour debate on an amendable motion—a significantly new feature of these arrangements.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances would the Government contemplate asking the House to set aside the Committee's recommendations in that way and it would certainly be appropriate to have a rather longer than usual debate under those circumstances, as was suggested by the Procedure Committee and as we readily accepted.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has tabled five amendments, to which he will no doubt speak. I would not seek to prevent him from doing so even if I could. His proposed amendments to Standing Order A would fix the size of the Deregulation Committee at 15 rather than 16, as the Procedure Committee proposed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It was amendment (aa).

Mr. Newton: I was referring to the amendment to Standing Order A that would fix the size of the Deregulation Committee at 15 and give it an extra week—20 days instead of 15—in which to report to the House on the final version of the draft order. The hon. Gentleman's proposed amendments to Standing Order B would provide for longer debates in the House on draft deregulation.orders.
I believe that the Government's proposals on these points are entirely reasonable. Moreover, as I have now said several times, they precisely follow the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. The motion also makes minor or consequential amendments to three existing Standing Orders.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way and I apologise if I may have missed some reference to this point in his original remarks. I ran as fast as I could to come and hear him, but he was on his feet quicker than I had expected.
I am concerned about the credibility and reputation of the Committee, which, to a large extent, will depend on its chairmanship. The Leader of the House will be aware that in many submissions to the Procedure Committee—and among its membership—a strong view was expressed that the precedent established in other Committees of having an Opposition Member as Chairman of the Committee could well be followed in this case. I appreciate that it is not appropriate for the order, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give a


assurance that he and his colleagues believe that, in normal circumstances, it would be appropriate for an Opposition Member to chair the Committee, if for no other reason than that the size of the Government these days might give him a larger pool of talent to call upon.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the chairmanship is not appropriate for the order before the House. I have to say—disappointingly for him—that his question is not really one for me; it is, as with the chairmanship of other Committees, normally a matter for discussion through the usual channels and it is appropriate in respect of this Committee.
A motion to nominate the new Deregulation Committee will be introduced as soon as possible following the customary consultations through the self-same usual channels. The Government have undertaken that no deregulation proposal will be laid before Parliament under the new procedure until four sitting weeks after the Committee has been nominated, which should give the Committee adequate time to sort out how it wants to work before it is asked to undertake any inquiries.
The proposals, which are based on the substantial work of the Procedure Committee and a good deal of early debate in the House and the other place, will provide a sensible and flexible way of ensuring that deregulation proposals are subjected—as they quite properly should be—to full and effective parliamentary scrutiny and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am grateful for the way in which the Leader of the House explained the motion. I should like to make a couple of preliminary points before coming to the main issues.
It is remarkable that we are entering an innovative parliamentary procedure with this Committee which is quite different from the history of how the House has operated. It is based on a Standing Order published less than a week ago. We are debating it today, yet we have not had the opportunity to debate the really effective changes that could occur in the Jopling report, which was published two years ago.
I make the contrast between the two if only to say to the Leader of the House that there is a case for that procedure simply on the grounds that, if the Government follow their programme on deregulation, there will be a considerable amount of work for the Select Committee, which may lead to many more orders reaching the Floor of the House.
Under the Jopling proposals, most of those orders could be considered in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. The idea is to stop clogging up the Floor of the House with matters of substantial detail. The two sets of proposals go hand in hand. It would be more effective to operate the new Select Committee, with its unique powers of scrutiny, once the Jopling proposals were implemented, even on an experimental basis.
Although there is some implied criticism in what I have said, it is no criticism of the discussions that the Leader of the House has had with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The sooner that we get on

with implementing Jopling the better. It will make the Deregulation Select Committee operate much more efficiently.
I have read a little of the background to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and to the proposals that we are discussing. It appears from my reading of the position that membership of the Deregulation Committee will be almost tantamount to membership of the Public Accounts Committee. I was a member of the PAC for two years. It is a full-time job to fulfil the functions and duties in the required detail.
There are some unwritten conventions in the House about who can and who cannot be a member of a Select Committee. There is a strong case for not following those conventions rigidly when the membership of the Deregulation Committee is considered. That is obviously a matter for discussion between the Government, the Opposition and the minor parties. Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, are precluded from serving on any Select Committee because they hold other positions. There is a strong case for changing that convention for the new Committee.

Mr. Spearing: I hope to catch your eye in a few moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend accept that the distinction that he makes is even greater than he perhaps realises? While the Public Accounts Committee has many similarities with the Deregulation Committee, its powers are entirely retrospective in matters of finance. The role of the Deregulation Committee will be prospective in terms of legislation that will be equally, if not more, important than financial legislation.

Mr. Rooker: I agree with that. I do not want to get into a debate on the distinction between the two Committees. The PAC does not deal with policy. It never has Ministers before it in any event. It calls only the accounting officers of the Department or agency. Having said that, serving on the Public Accounts Committee, which has two separate sittings and reports each week on different subjects, is a full-time job for its members. There is no room for lots of outside interests. So the Deregulation Committee, which will run along similar lines as the PAC, will be extremely important. The membership and the care with which the Committee exercises its duties will have to be watched carefully by the House.
Another point about the process of the Committee is that the Government will decide to make a deregulation order—in the machinery of Government; we will never know about it. They will then consult outside interests before laying a proposal before the House. Again, under the normal process, we will not know about it. "Interests" is a strange word to use. When the Government have decided to make an order, they should tell the world. It should be a matter of public knowledge.
The House has an interest in knowing who the Government consulted as outside interests before they laid the draft order. We should like to see a list of the outside interests that the Government consulted. The work of the Committee will be absolutely crucial in the sense that it will take evidence from people who may have been deprived of the opportunity to be consulted as an outside interest before the order was laid before the House. So we should know whom the Government consulted.
There is no doubt that in the past 15 years power has shifted from Westminster to Whitehall on a grand scale. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act and the operation of the Committee will transfers powers to Whitehall even further. There will be a free vote on the motion tonight. Indeed, I suspect that there will not be any votes. We want to make the system work, regardless of whether we disagree or agree with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. However, it has to be said that England is the last one-party state in western Europe. The Conservatives have ruled Britain more this century than the Communist party ruled the Soviet Union. The changes brought about in the past 15 years sometimes appeared to be made on the basis that the Conservative party thought that it would continue to rule for ever.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act transfers another tranche of powers from the House to the Executive. Sometimes other parties will have use of the powers that the Government have left in Whitehall. We must make sure that those parties operate them democratically, openly and in the interests of our fellow citizens. I remind the Leader of the House and his colleagues that that will come as a shock to Conservative Members who have never been in opposition. Of course, that applies to most of the Cabinet. I exclude the present Leader of the House, who was so helpful as a member of the Opposition in enabling me to carry through certain changes in the Finance Act 1977.
There are many other Acts that other parties in government might wish to change. They may not wish to go through the laborious processes of scrutiny and primary legislation to which we are accustomed in the House. The powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act and the changes to the Standing Orders do not require much modification to be used for other purposes.
I am not interested in cutting corners. I hope that the Leader of the House is not interested in cutting corners. I do not wish to debate the effects of the deregulation legislation. One of the matters that the Deregulation Committee will scrutinise in deciding whether to take evidence and how to judge a deregulation order will be, as paragraph A(5)(A)(c) says:
whether the proposals…continue any necessary protection.
 Such protection could be on matters of health and safety,
protection at work, and employment protection. Those matters go to the bare bones of the rights of our fellow citizens. So we are not interested in any corners being cut by either this or any future Government.
The Government have played with fire on the issue of procedure. I set that as a warning for the future. It is a warning as much to the Leader of the House as to anyone who occupies his position in the future. Nothing illustrates how the Government have played with fire with our procedure more than the Tory domination of the Deregulation Committee. The Conservatives will insist on the usual procedure. They will want an overall Conservative majority on the Committee, as there is on every Select Committee, whoever the Chair may be. I shall come to that in a moment.
As I understand the order, even if, by chance, the governing majority in the Deregulation Committee did not get their way, the Government could bring the order back to the Floor of the House so that their majority could push it through. That shows a supreme lack of confidence. We know what other Select Committees and Standing Committees are like. There are 651 very busy people in

the House. We may criticise each other on a party, performance or competence basis, but we are all busy people. Occasionally, hon. Members come through the doors to vote at 10 o'clock knowing nothing of the detail of what they will vote on.
We are setting up a high-powered Committee, membership of which will be virtually a full-time occupation. Like other Select Committees, but unlike Standing Committees, it will take evidence. It will use advisers and it will have the assistance of legal counsel. I hope that legal counsel will be fully independent and will have as much to do with the Government as I have. It must be as independent as possible.
The Committee will take considerable time to scrutinise the proposed changes. It will deliberate. If it comes to a considered view after mature inquiry and consideration that it does not agree with the deregulation order in question, the matter will come to the Floor of the House, the Government will put on a three-line Whip, 651 people will troop through the doors and bingo.
If the Government were confident of their proposal to short-cut our usual scrutiny procedures by avoiding primary legislation, they would not seek to dominate the Committee as I suspect they will. The Government should not seek the chairmanship. I have not read all the details, but I understand that the decision on that required the casting vote of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, from whom I hope that we will hear an abject apology shortly.
I hope that the Leader of the House will say that this is not an example of the Government seeking to dominate. I accept that, unlike the Public Accounts Committee, this Committee will deal with an element of legislation. It is a different legislative, procedural and scrutinising animal, unlike anything previously known in the House. 'That being so, I ask the Government to have confidence in their own legislation and procedures. They should be confident that this is a matter that they can get right.
Where the Government have a majority, they are entitled to get their legislation. Nevertheless, I hope that they will say that they do not want to take short cuts or be seen to cheat on the Opposition and that Labour can have the Chair of the Committee. If they did that, they would engender confidence in the House in the functions of the Committee.
If the Government seek to overturn a decision of the Deregulation Committee, if, in their wisdom, they decide not to approve deregulation, the interested and informed parts of the public who were concerned with that element of deregulation will hold the House further in conteimpt. That is crucial.
The Labour party will co-operate with the Committee. It is in everyone's interests that it should do so and it would be irresponsible not to do so. But we will not co-operate quietly. The Opposition will scrutinise the operation of the Deregulation Committee from day one. We will watch and monitor its procedure. We will watch and monitor the interests involved, both those of the Members and those who appear before it. We will ruthlessly expose any corruption of our democratic procedures. The Government are taking a short cut 'with our procedures and, if we feel that it has the potential to cause problems for our constituents and fellow citizens, we need to expose that.
I have made it clear that the Labour party will not disrupt the Committee in any way. We shall operate it responsibly, but we do not agree with it. We say in a spirit of good will to the Leader of the House, who has introduced the proposal so speedily—less than a week after publication—that we hope that there will be no dragooning of the membership. That must be a matter for mature discussion between the parties and possibly, as I have already said, a breaching of one of the conventions of the House.
That said, the Committee has a serious job to do. It is the long-stop against the deregulation measures that we think the Government will introduce, which will be so damaging to life in Britain.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has obviously given considerable consideration to this measure. He emphasised, as I wish to do, the great importance of the Committee. Later in my speech I intend to say that this will become one of the most important Committees in the House. Therefore, I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman said on that.
First, I thank the Government for carrying forward the recommendations of the Procedure Committee nearly to the letter. That is a fairly unusual experience for the Procedure Committee. The Government have been willing to accept the Committee's recommendations almost in their entirety. This Committee, when in action, will, I believe, come to be perhaps the most important and significant modernisation of House of Commons procedure since the introduction of the departmental Select Committees 14 years ago.
The Committee is significant because the Standing Order, once approved, will provide a unique means of amending primary legislation, and it is the amending of primary legislation which is important. That is why the Procedure Committee spent much time and gave considerable thought and care to framing its regulations and recommendations. Once we were charged by the House to consider the best way for the House to discuss deregulation orders, the principle behind our recommendations was the realisation that the deregulation order was, or was at least the alternative of, primary legislation. This is the first time that it will be possible to alter primary legislation without a Bill being brought before the House.
In an Adjournment debate on the subject, I said that we believed that a deregulation order should not—I repeat not—be considered to be just another statutory instrument. That follows very much what the hon. Gentleman was saying. After all, a statutory instrument is secondary legislation. It is part of a Bill that we have already passed and those powers are allowed.
A deregulation order is an entirely different instrument and must be considered as such by the House, by the Clerks and by lawyers outside. It is, in effect, primary legislation inasmuch as it alters an Act of Parliament. It is therefore a substitute for another part of primary legislation. That is its unique nature, which the hon. Gentleman outlined.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the use of the legislation for purposes other than deregulation. I would ask him to look carefully at the Standing Order, which makes it clear that the basic consideration of the Committee must be that its proposals should
remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden".
That refers to a reduction in the burden of legislation, not an alteration for the sake of it; an alteration that is necessary because there is a burden on our constituents, on industry, trade unions or whatever. I shall return to that in a moment.
It is worth underlining, because it complies with something that the hon. Gentleman said, that paragraph 16 of the fourth report of the Select Committee, 1993–94, says:
In our recommendations we have sought to ensure that no Act of Parliament is repealed or amended under this new power without examination at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House.
We want to ensure a full examination by the House.
The new Deregulation Committee will become, as I have already said, one of the most senior Committees of the House. I am particularly concerned that the Government have been willing, in paragraph A(2) of the motion, to set out the three approaches that the Committee must make. It says:


"(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House;"—
if that had been a recommendation of the Committee—
"(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals"—

other than those that have been laid by the House.
Paragraph (5) makes it clear that the Committee must consider whether the draft deregulation order appears to make any inappropriate use of delegated legislation. If it does, that is the first thing that the Committee should consider and reject. I hope that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr about powers being extended.
The Committee will consider also the continuation of any necessary protection that the legislation may have given. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that it is essential to ensure that protection is reviewed. That is stated in the Committee's recommendation and endorsed by the Government.
The measure introduces two provisions that were not part of the Procedure Committee's recommendations, but I am sure that it would have been happy to consider them. One is that the Deregulation Committee must consider whether the deregulation order has any retrospective effect. The Government were right to make that addition. The other is that the Committee should consider whether an order appears to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union. Again, that addition is to be applauded rather than rejected.
I will be interested to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for reducing the membership of the Deregulation Committee from 16 to 15. We felt that it needs to be that size to ensure that different parties and parts of the country could be represented on the Committee. We went to a lot of trouble before arriving at 16, which emphasises the importance that should be attached to the Deregulation Committee.
I am glad that the Government have, almost without exception, accepted our recommendations concerning the Committee's powers—that it can adjourn from place to place, report from time to time, have specialist advisers, appoint a sub-committee, sit during recesses, sit in other places in the United Kingdom, and communicate with other Committees and the House of Lords.
If the same deregulation order were being considered by both Houses, it would be nonsense to ask a Minister or other witnesses to appear twice. We should be able to arrange for evidence to be taken together, so that witnesses would have to appear only once.
The sub-committee's powers have also been defined and seem appropriate. There is, of course, the power to send for persons and papers. The Government have not accepted the recommendation that the Deregulation Committee should be able to summon Ministers. The Government argue, with considerable persuasiveness, that a Minister who wants to see his deregulation order approved would be unlikely to refuse the Committee's request to appear before it. Any Minister who rejected such an invitation would be likely to find that the Committee looked carefully and with a critical eye at the order. It would want to know why the devil the Minister would not attend to answer questions.

Mr. Spearing: Paragraph (9) states that the Committee shall have the power
to send for persons, papers and records".
I may not have compared that properly with other Select Committee terms of reference, but I assume that it includes the power to send for Ministers. Do other Select Committees have different terms of reference?

Sir Peter Emery: Those powers are the same as for other departmental Select Committees, which do not have the power to summon Ministers. That can be done only by a request from the House, passed by the House. Similarly, a Select Committee cannot enforce the attendance of a Member of Parliament.
The Government could also argue, although they have not done so, that if they gave the Deregulation Committee—even though it may be one of the most important Committees—the power to call Ministers, that could be the thin end of the wedge and other Committees might demand a similar power. I am willing to accept the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council that a Minister would want to attend if requested.
The Deregulation Committee will adopt a new and unique procedure that I term the fast track. Where a provision is obviously a burden on business or the public, and is unanimously viewed by everyone on the Committee as something that should be done away with, deregulation can—after consideration by the Government—come before the House immediately and be put forthwith.
If only one member of the Committee objected, that would halt the fast track procedure. The proposal would be considered by the whole Committee, calling witnesses if necessary. If the Committee wanted to recommend approval of the deregulation order, it would come before the House—which would make sure that it was the same as the draft order and that the Government had not, by sleight of hand, altered it. The House could then debate it for one and a half hours.
If the Deregulation Committee believed that the draft order should not go forward, it could not be put to the House without a three-hour debate. Also unique is that instead of the order coming before the House because it is unamendable, the Procedure Committee has devised a device whereby an amendment to the draft order could be publicised and voted on by the House, because the House must approve or disapprove the Deregulation Committee's recommendation.
Therefore, for the Government to overcome the recommendation for an order not to be proceeded with, the matter must come to the House and the House must vote to disagree with one of its own Committees, which has recommended that the order should not be proceeded with. If the Committee contains a majority of members from the Government's party, it will be difficult for the Government to take that step. But if they do, they must first table an amendable motion whereby the Committee can make it clear why it is not willing to accept the deregulation order. The Procedure Committee thought that that new procedure would safeguard the rights of Members of the House to ensure that their views were properly expressed and not overridden or simply stamped on by a Government.
The Committee's recommendations are fairly definite: fast track; to the Floor of the House; and put forthwith. After debate and agreement by the Committee, the matter will be put to the House with the possibility of an hour and a half s debate. If matters are not agreed by the Committee, they will come to the Floor of the House for a three-hour debate—again, that is new—on an adjournable motion.
The amendments would alter that procedure so that there would be no fast track. But if members of the Committee are unanimous, a matter can still have an hour and a half s debate. The overall effect of the three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South would be that the hour and a half s debate for the second stage would be shunted to two and a half hours, and the three-hour debate would be shunted to four hours.

Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that removing the fast track gives greater protection to the House, Back-Bench Members and the public? Is not the fast track that he commends advantageous to Her Majesty's Government, whichever party is in power?

Sir Peter Emery: It is advantageous to the removal of a burden as quickly as possible. If 16 members from both sides of a Committee are unanimous in the view that it would remove a burden, that should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

Mr. Spearing: So does it stay an hour and a half?

Sir Peter Emery: Well, it saves it having to be debated on the Floor of the House. But yes, it stays an hour and a half. Those differences do not amount to much. Without wishing to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, the amendments involve a shunting from nothing, an hour and a half and three hours to an hour and a half, two and a half hours and four hours. The amendments are unnecessary and the Committee, which has considered the matter fully, supports the Government's recommendations.
I have been speaking for too long and should come to a conclusion. Basically, I repeat what I said before: this is a unique and new procedure which I hope will be


established. It may act as an illustration later when we consider how we may streamline procedures in the House generally. It is unique because of the variations, but I have made it crystal clear that, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, the Committee will have a great deal of work and will take up a great deal of Members' time, as it rightly should, because it deals with primary legislation.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Lord President for his kind words about me and the Committee. We are delighted that we can respond by approving the Government's recommendations, which will probably portend this evening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to speak, I remind the House of Madam Speaker's ruling that it will be in order for the hon. Member to deal with any matter covered by his amendments. If he wishes to press either amendment (a) or (b) to a vote, he should move them formally at the conclusion of the whole debate.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful for your reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker, of that ruling. I tabled the amendments to enable them to be discussed. I may decide to move amendments (a) and (b), but I understand that they could be negatived on the voice even if they are moved. In that event, we shall see what happens.
I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for his clear exposition of why the Committee produced the basis for the new standing orders. As the House will have gathered from our exchanges, I take an opposite view about both the desirability of the Act and the effectiveness of the procedures. As we all know, standing orders are the ball bearings of democracy. They are the inner hub of the democratic wheel. Unfortunately, these standing orders break new constitutional ground—we agree on that. I also agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made clear, they will entail a lot of work by Committee members, comparable with the work done by the Public Accounts Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: I see the Committee Chairman nodding.
The standing orders add another architectural wing to the procedural building of this House. I know that that is a mixed metaphor, but everyone understands what I mean. They will entail more effort and work by more hon. Members. But it will not be the normal work of most Select Committees, since Select Committees are generally considered to be good for democracy because they penetrate, expose—at least, they have the potential to do so—require evidence, test arguments, enlighten, produce reports and recommend. By making the Executive accountable, they add to the sum total of democracy. That is a fair assumption about Select Committees, but only if their functions match other functions of the House, and are in a particular context.
We can judge the proposed Committee's work, and the quality of its proposed standing orders, only by looking at their function. It is not to penetrate, expose and do all sorts of things to the Executive; rather, it is a reaction to a vast new power which legislation has already given the Executive. The right hon. Member for Honiton freely admits that. There is a fast track not just in terms of the Select Committee's work coming back to the Floor of the House—the subject of our earlier exchange—but in terms of new legislation itself.
The proposals in the Act are for legislation allowing statutory instruments to amend pretty well any Act at all. Indeed, although there is no limit on the Act, other than the Government's wish, the proposals would allow a single statutory instrument to amend an unknown number of Acts in an unknown number of ways.
If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Leader of the House will tell me so—as will the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. But the document that the Government must present to the House under, I believe, section 3 of the Act, need not be one document per proposed amendment; it can be one document per statutory instrument. Presumably, given a schedule, there can be any number of amendments to any number of Acts: no limit is imposed by either the Act or the Standing Orders.
Let us imagine, to use a crude analogy, that a huge new powerful motor car driving from Whitehall to Westminster is to be equipped with brakes. What we are discussing tonight, as we have in previous debates, is the nature of those brakes. I contend that whatever we manage to cobble together tonight in regard to Standing Orders will not be appropriate, because many of us do not think that the motor car should exist in the first place.
It is not just a question of party politics; it is a question of whether any Government should have this power. The ability to amend any number of Acts of Parliament by means of a single statutory instrument, whatever the scrutiny procedure, is a considerable power for any Executive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr pointed out, section 3 enables the Minister to construct his motor car—or bulldozer: many metaphors could be used—by consulting such organisations
as appear to him to be representative",
and such persons
as he considers appropriate
and to
undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to him to be appropriate.
Only at the conclusion of that will the Minister lay the document, if that is considered appropriate.
As we know from current proceedings in the House—from what will happen on Monday, for instance, and from the discussions that took place over the weekend—if a Minister has already said that he will do this and lays the appropriate paper before the House, he and his supporters are to an extent committed. He and the Government will decide what is to be done, not in the Queen's Speech but in secret consultation, according to statute. Even before we start, we are faced with a pretty formidable machine. My amendments suggest, in a modest way, how the brakes can be made a little more efficient—although I do not think they would be very efficient even if the amendments were accepted.
Before I discuss the amendments, however, let me say something about the associated topic of related committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr suggested that this new Committee might, in a way, be analogous to the Public Accounts Committee, and I agree that in some administrative senses that will be true. The Committee will be given a good deal of evidence by a number of people. It will, however, be prospective in legislative terms, rather than retrospective in terms of policing and money. A big difference is involved in that.
One similarity will lie in the fact that many people will be involved, absorbing the Committee's time and effort. It may also generate considerable controversy. As has been suggested, there are also similarities with the Select Committee on European Legislation. As the right hon. Member for Honiton knows, I was able to give his Committee some evidence when I chaired the European Committee, as I did for nine years.
In my view, however, while there are several similarities, in regard to administration and in regard to at least some of the clerking skills. This Committee, however, will not fulfil the same constitutional role. While the European Committee suggests that debates should take place and presents an objective report on what is at issue, it does not deal with merit. The purpose of this Committee, however, is almost wholly related to merit. It must judge—first on the evidence that the Minister provides and then on evidence that may come from elsewhere, within tight time limits—the balance between protection and burden.
The right hon. Gentleman has constantly said that the Act is there to reduce burdens, and I do not blame him; that, after all, is the purpose of the Act. But—to misquote Harold Wilson—one person's burden is another's protection. In the history of the House of Commons, most Members of Parliament have a duty here to achieve a balance between the two. We are dealing not just with any old amendments to Acts, but with what I would describe as the heart of one of the functions of the House of Commons and Acts of Parliament: balancing burdens and benefits. The biggest balance of the lot is that between taxation and how the money is spent. The Committee is important, in that it lies at the heart of a great deal of what the House is elected to do in any event.
The right hon. Member for Honiton said a good deal about fast tracks, and his Committee has provided a diagram illustrating what will happen. I do not think that its proposals will all be adopted, but a diagram is certainly needed to explain the position properly. The right hon. Gentleman did explain, as did the Leader of the House, in terms of the different procedures. No fewer than 110 lines explain how the Committee should be established and how it should work. Much of the content replicates what other Select Committee have produced, but much does not. I refer to the double blocking procedure.
My amendment (b) deals with the limit of one and a half hours debate on the Floor of the House. At present the House devotes that time to dealing with a single statutory instrument; until just after the war, the debate was open ended. If only five people are present in the relevant quorum when the proposal reaches its final stages in the Committee—perhaps only two Opposition Members—it is possible that, if three or five of them agree we shall end up with a large number of amendments to Acts, which will then come to the House and be taken forthwith. In fact, I believe that there must be a minimum of five

people, and in some cases they may all be non-Opposition Members. Can any hon. Member deny that that is a possible scenario? The right hon. Member for Honiton nods.

Sir Peter Emery: It is a possibility.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Member for confirming my suggestion. Why are we passing Standing Orders that will allow an unknown number of Acts to be amended in an unknown number of ways, forthwith, on the Floor of the House?

Sir Peter Emery: Let me try to clear up a point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which created a doubt in my mind. He suggested that a single order might involve a host of matters affecting different pieces of legislation. Section 1 of the Act refers consistently to a single order concerned with a certain burden. It is possible that that burden would be covered by more than one Act, but it is a single burden and not a series of burdens concerning a series of different Acts. Certainly, the Government never suggested, and the Select Committee never considered—on the evidence that it received—that serialisation under a single Act could be implemented under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act in its ultimate form.
I thought it important to straighten that out; it should relieve the hon. Gentleman's worries.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that intervention because it shows that sometimes useful exchanges occur when there are only a few hon. Members in the House. Less light is often shed on matters when there is a maximum number of hon. Members present. This is a classic example of the former situation.
The comments of the right hon. Member for Honiton may be correct by the implicit wording of the Act, but until now that has not been made clear. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making the point clear. He is saying that a single statutory instrument deals with a particular burden which may involve the amendment of part of an Act or a number of Acts, which may relieve or change the balance of the burden. It means also that we will not have a series of decisions made forthwith or any debates on anything other than a single burden to be removed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Honiton for proving that because it removes at least some of my objection to the procedure. Nevertheless, the essentials remain.
I am thinking aloud now, but that is what we do here sometimes. The question is what we mean by "burden". It could be a collective burden on a number of matters relating to machinery, safety at work or anything. We have to define what "the burden" is. I can see that a single statutory instrument might encompass a wide range of burdens.
The right hon. Member for Honiton referred to the possibility of a division. If there is a division within the Committee, there has to be a debate of an hour and a half. I hope that that is so, because the statutory instruments are important enough to deserve at least that. My amendment (c), which is not being called, asks for a debate of two hours. After the Minister has opened the debate and the Opposition Front Bench Member has spoken, if we are to leave time for winding up, we


discover that one and a half hours is not very long. Although my amendment is not being called, it is something that we may wish to consider.
My amendment (aa) has not been called, but it has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Honiton in relation to the chairmanship of the Committee. I recognise that it might be inadvisable to put, in broad terms in standing orders, whether the chairmanship of particular Committees should be held by Opposition or Government Members. I do not think that that occurs in Standing Orders now. However, there is a convention on these matters, and one which reflects the quality of the House. There is nothing to prevent a Select Committee from underlining that convention with a recommendation. That would be acceptable.
I have many connections with colleagues from other European Parliaments. When I told them that I was the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation not because of my views but simply because I was a member of the Opposition, they said, "Quel magnifique—does that mean that the Chairman is always appointed from the Opposition?" When I said that that was so, they said, "That is marvellous. Your House of Commons is so marvellous. I wish we did that." The Public Accounts Committee, the Statutory Instruments Committee and the Select Committee on European Legislation follow that convention and it is agreed. I am not saying that it should be in Standing Orders.
The singular voting event referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was unfortunate. On reflection, the Chairman of the Committee, despite his hard work on this, might have done something different. The Select Committee report—HC238 from the parliamentary Session 1993–94—says in paragraph 96:
We recommend that the Deregulation Committee should be chaired by a member from an Opposition party.
There is nothing wrong with that recommendation as such. That was in the Chairman's draft report and I thought that the hon. Member for Honiton was following the convention. When they voted on that recommendation, there were six ayes and six noes. The Chairman then declared himself with the noes. That was against convention because the status quo was the Chairman's report under discussion.
That is unfortunate and I hope that the hon. Member for Honiton will reconsider and recommend to the Leader of the House that, by convention, if not by recommendation, the new Select Committee should be added to the list of Committees following the convention. Chairmen have responsibilities and, if the Committee is not added to that list, the enormous powers will be allied with the interests of Her Majesty's Government and not with the interests of the House and proper scrutiny. It would not be in the interests of the Government of the day, whoever that may be, or in the interests of those concerned or the public if that convention were not continued. My amendment asks that the membership of the Committee be changed from 16 to 15. That alters the mathematics. With 15 and a Government Chairman, the

Government majority would be marginally reduced. It was tabled in order to bring the matter into the ambit of debate and for no other reason.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman raised my name as Chairman of the Committee and spoke about the way I cast my vote. It is only fair that I should explain, as I explained to the Committee, that the chairmanship of any new Committee established by the House has always been negotiated through the usual channels. There has never been a recommendation from a Select Committee about the chairmanship. There is no doubt that the usual channels will have seen what was in the draft report. When the Committee is established, the usual channels will decide. I believe that that was the right way to behave and that is why I voted as I did.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that explanation and I am glad to have been able to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making it. We all understand that negotiations between the usual channels have to take place, although we accept that it is a bit of a compromise. However, the convention of the House that certain sorts of Committee always have an Opposition Chairman is a slightly different matter. I do not think that we have had a new Select Committee of this sort since the formation of the Select Committee on European Legislation in 1974 when the late John Davies,. whom many of us recall, went straight from the Cabinet to be Chairman of that Committee in Opposition. I understand the explanation of the right hon. Member for Honiton, but I suggest that the precedent for new Committees is on my side of the argument rather than his.
I shall conclude with a quotation from those days. It is from the Select Committee on Procedure appointed in 1976 which reported in the Session 1977–78. Paragraph 1.5 of that report—HC588—said:
We agree that the relationship between the executive and the legislature is the crucial feature of the functioning of our institutions of government, and we are conscious of the widespread concern in the country about the present nature of that relationship …The essence of the problem…is that the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day to day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy.
That was the view of the Select Committee which made recommendations for the setting up of the departmental Select Committees. It was followed up by Lord Pym and Lord St John of Fawsley respectively, as shadow Leader and Leader of the House. That view was expressed unanimously by the members of that Committee who were elected on 15 June 1976. The record states that the Committee consisted of:
Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Michael English, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Giles Radice, Sir David Renton, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Sir Thomas Williams.
I believe that the Act on the basis of which the Standing Orders will come into being will do what was then feared. It will give greater power to the Executive and less power to the House. Whatever the degree of the changes that we may make and whatever the complications involving the Standing Orders, they will go in the opposite direction to that epoch-making Select Committee report nearly 20 years ago.

Mr. James Hill: I understand that we have only a few minutes left in the debate. I rise to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, who steered the ship through some troubled waters, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House,who, when giving evidence, made so many matters clear.
I suppose that all hon. Members are sorry that Ministers will not he able to come to the new Select Committee but, after a while, there may be a change of heart because, obviously, Ministers will know most about any deregulation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that many of the deregulations would be "tiddlers". He said that 55 possible deregulations were waiting in the corridor. I am sure that they will be phased through. Some regulations will be so ancient that we shall be able to dismiss them in a few minutes.
I have looked at our list of recommendations. Apart from the recommendation on a Minister of the Crown, I think that the Leader of the House has given way on practically everything else. Perhaps the only possible vacuum involves the fact that we wanted to exchange evidence with other House of Commons Committees. That may be a bit laborious.
We have heard a great deal from the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. There is no doubt that the Joint Committee containing hon. Members from this place and the other place will provide great expertise. I was pleased that I was assured when hearing evidence that hon. Members with specialist knowledge would be able to attend and speak in the Committee. It is a good idea to allow everyone who has expertise on a Bill to give their view.
I hear much twittering of papers, so I had better not delay the House any longer. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for calling me, and I fully support the new Committee.

Mr. Newton: In recent moments, there appears to have been a slight shift in the atmosphere in the House, which may have affected hon. Members' views on how much time I should take for my speech, but it would be appropriate to comment on a number of points that have been raised.
Among the pleasures of the debate, which, I must admit, have so far been few, is the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is performing for the first time in his new role. This is the first time that he and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box, as distinct from facing each other in other ways.
In my early period as Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, a position that I filled from about 1982 to 1984, the hon. Member for Perry Barr was my Opposition opposite number, so to speak. I remember some entertaining exchanges at DHSS Questions, as they were then known, between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. He sat on the Government Benches in 1974 to 1979, when I sat on the Opposition Benches.

During that time, I served on every one of the innumerable Committees that considered the Finance Bill and I think that he sat on many of them. too.

Mr. Rooker: I sat on only one.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman certainly made his mark on that one. I served on every one of the two-yearly Committees considering the Finance Bill from 1974 to 1979. One Committee sticks in the mind. Perhaps it was not widely noticed by people outside. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments that were tabled in that Committee became known as the Rooker-Wise amendments, but they should have been called either the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendments or the Rooker-Wise-Newton-Lawson amendments. At that stage, however, I was not prepared to own up. They were entertaining and interesting times, even if much of our business was done at unusual times of the night.
The people whose business it is to ensure that the House's affairs run smoothly have improved their performance in recent moments. That may ease the pressure on me as I rapidly start to comment on the points that have been raised.
I must enter some reservation about the criticism, as I suppose one must call it, from Front-Bench and Back-Bench Opposition Members over the speed with which the Orders have allegedly been introduced. I accept that the detail of the fairly complex changes to the Standing Orders—such things nearly always end up being fairly complex—has been around for only a week or so. However, the shape and nature of the proposals, including those to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr objects, were made clear in a full Government statement months ago, before the House even completed its consideration of the proposals.
The notion, therefore, that the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have had only one week to find out what all this is about is far fetched. I see from the expression of the face of hon. Member for Perry Barr that he thinks that I have a point.
One of the things about the hon. Member for Perry Barr is that he sometimes manages to end a speech at the Dispatch Box in the manner of a militant, but I have always known that under it lie the mind and heart of a moderate.

Sir Peter Emery: And an honest man.

Mr. Newton: I take that for granted, as I do for all our colleagues in the House, not least the hon. Member for Newham, South, who I suspect may be seeking to stop this badinage and to get me to say something about the Standing Orders.

Mr. Spearing: Of course, I accept that the proposal's general outline has been known for a long time. The limitation of time, however, involves formal exposure of the proposals to hon. Members. Effectively, the proposals have been on the Order Paper for three days. I think that that is accurate. That is the issue.

Mr. Newton: I do not want to make a meal of this, but I resist that conclusion. This happened months ago, so I may have the sequence slightly out of order, but, either before Report or certainly before Third Reading, I made sure that a full paper setting out the Government's


proposals was exposed to anyone who cared to look at it. The proposed arrangements were fully explained in the House. This, therefore, is not a bounce.

Sir Peter Emery: We had an Adjournment debate on the matter.

Mr. Newton: We did indeed and the issues were considered in that debate.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr made some reasonable points. I cannot respond to all of them; I shall reflect on some of them and draw them to the attention of those people in the usual channels who will have to consider the membership of the Committee. They can consider some of the points that he raised in talking about the usual conventions.
It is often assumed that there are Select Committees on which Front-Bench spokesmen do not serve, but a significant number of Select Committees include Front-Bench spokesmen, including the domestic Committees dealing with broadcasting and House matters. The Select Committee on Members' Interests has Front-Bench spokesmen from both sides of the House. It is clearly not ruled out in principle. If it seems sensible that they should sit on the Committee, the matter could be considered.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that who had been consulted should be made clear. The intention is to say what consultations have taken place, unless the people involved specifically request confidentiality. Such information would, therefore, normally be available to the Committee. There is no attempt to cover up or prevent the Committee from having the information that it should have.
The requirement for the ministerial document to be laid specifically includes the consultation undertaken and any representations received, subject to the usual condition of confidentiality if requested. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that that would be laborious and time-consuming work, but the Government are conscious of the need not to swamp the new process. Depending on how many proposals the Committee might want to inquire into in more detail, we would have to judge the number that could be considered at any one time. As I said, we intend to set up a special mechanism in Whitehall to ensure that there is a sensible flow of business to the Committee.

Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman again makes an analogy with the Public Accounts Committee, which deals with between 30 and 45 reports a year. Its programme of work comes from the National Audit Office more or less on a two-year basis. Not everything comes to fruition, but it has had good advance notice so that it can programme the timetable for membership and publication of any reports. I am not suggesting that there should be a requirement for two years' notice, but I believe that the new Committee should have decent up-front knowledge rather than three or four months.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman and I have been doing business together for 20 years so he should know me well enough to accept that, if someone makes a

reasonable point, I try to respond reasonably. His point certainly sounds reasonable and I shall ensure that it is examined.

Sir Peter Emery: The Government have assured the Committee that they would consult on such matters.

Mr. Newton: I come rapidly to my response to what I take to be the main thrust of the criticisms and concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Newham, South and, in passing, pick up on a particular point made by the former. I believe that I can quote almost the exact words used by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who said that he wanted the legal adviser to the Committee to have as much to do with the Government as he did. In fact, the intention is that the Deregulation Committee will be given legal advice by the Counsel to the Speaker, not by Government lawyers. I think that the House authorities will confirm that the Counsel to the Speaker has precisely as much to do with the Government as the hon. Gentleman has and is entirely independent of the Government.
The notion that we are seeking to take powers away from the House is far-fetched. Under a different range of mechanisms, every proposal—whatever the Committee says—comes to the House, often for further discussion if the House so wishes, but always for a decision. That is an important and basic point. The hon. Member for Newham, South and, indeed, the hon. Member for Perry Barr, seemed to suggest that the Government would drop the vehicle licensing system or the health and safety at work system under the new legislation, but that is a ridiculous notion.

Mr. Spearing: I did not mention it.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps not, but that was the flavour of what the hon. Gentleman said. The implication was that the Government would charge around, overturning important Acts of Parliament at the drop of a hat and without a vote. That is far-fetched. The White Paper contains 55 examples and I accept that the one that I always choose is the most extreme. One of the proposals is to ensure that the Patent Office can accept documents in forms other than on paper, such as electronic filing. The Government believe that it does not make sense in this day and age to have to pass an Act to allow the Patent Office to accept documents in forms other than on paper. It is an extreme example but a good one; it threatens no one and is simply common sense. It is daft to have to go through the three or four stages of an Act in two Houses of Parliament to allow that to happen. We are devising a procedure to allow it to happen more simply and sensibly. I commend that and the Orders to the House.
Amendment proposed: (a), in Standing Order A, paragraph (14), leave out 'fifteen' and insert `twenty'.— [Mr. Spearing.]
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Amendment proposed: (b), in Standing Order B, paragraph (1)(a), leave out `forthwith' and insert
'not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion'.[Mr. Spearing.].
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Main Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That Standing Orders A and B below shall have effect and Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business), No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) shall be amended as set out below.


A. Deregulation Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Deregulation Committee, to examine every document containing proposals laid before the House under section 3, and every draft order proposed to be made under section 1, of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
(2) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every document containing proposals laid before the House under the said section 3, either—

(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House; or
(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals.

(3) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every draft order laid before the House under the said section 1, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved.
(4) The committee may report to the House on any matter arising from consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
(5)

(A) In its consideration of proposals the committee shall consider in each case whether the proposals—

(a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
(b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;
(c) continue any necessary protection;
(d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
(e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe the amount of any such charge or payment;
(f) purport to have retrospective effect;
(g) give rise to doubts whether they are intra vires;
(h) require elucidation or appear to be defectively drafted;
(i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union.

(B) In its consideration of draft orders, the committee shall consider in each case all the matters set out in sub-paragraph (A) above and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the Committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.

(6) The committee shall consist of sixteen members.
(7) The quorum of the committee shall be five.
(8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(9) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
(c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
(d) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House and to any committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders.

(10) The committee and the sub-committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any select committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders and any sub-committee thereof.
(11) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.
(12) The committee and the sub-committee shall have power to 'nvite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being of the committee shall otherwise take part in the proceedings of the committee or sub-committee, or be counted in the quorum.
(13) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting either—

(i) that any proposal should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House, or
(ii) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of any proposal, or
(iii) that any draft order should not be approved,
it shall afford to any government department concerned, an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department think fit.

(14) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it report on every draft order not more than fifteen sitting days after the draft order was laid before the House, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division.

B. Consideration of draft deregulation orders

(1) If the Deregulation Committee has reported under paragraph (3) of Standing Order A (Deregulation Committee) that a draft order laid before the House under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 should be approved and a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to that effect, the question thereon shall—

(a) if the committee's recommendation was agreed without a division, be put forthwith;
(b) if the committee's recommendation was agreed after a division, be put not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.

(2) If the committee has reported that a draft order should not be approved, no motion to approve the draft order shall be made unless the House has previously resolved to disagree with the committee's report; the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion for such a resolution to disagree shall be put not later than three hours after their commencement; and the question shall be put forthwith on any motion thereafter made by a Minster of the Crown that such a draft order be approved.
(3) Motions to which this order applies may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)



Line 14, after 'procedure))', insert 'or Standing Order B (Consideration of draft deregulation orders)'.
Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee))
Line 22, at end insert 'and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994'.
Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments)
Line 101, after 'Accounts', insert 'and to the Deregulation Committee'.

European Community Type-Approval of Motor Cycles

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10904/93, 8037/94 and 8618/94 relating to European Community type-approval of motorcycles; supports the principle of a single market in motorcycles which such a process is designed to achieve; shares the Government's view that amendments must be sought to Document No. 10904/93 if it is not to impact adversely and unnecessarily on motorcyclists and the motorcycle industry; supports the European Parliament's amendments set out in Document No. 8037/94 on the deletion of a motorcycle power limit; but opposes the European Parliament's amendment in that Document seeking a role for it in 'comitology'.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to listen to the Lord President's speech. I enjoyed it hugely and was able to regain my breath. I gather that my right hon. Friend was worried that I might have missed his pearls of wisdom, which would have been a shame. It was clearly a stimulating debate, but I must make progress.
This debate provides a welcome opportunity for us to comment on the recent developments in the Community's formation of a single market in motor cycles and, in particular, on the draft multi-purpose and power directives and their place in it.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am puzzled by the motion and wonder whether my query could be dealt with before we move on. What does "comitology" mean? I have not been able to find it and gather that it has not been used in the House before. I should be grateful for an explanation.

Mr. Norris: There is to be no conferring on this. Would my hon. Friend like the short or long explanation? I have a 45-minute monograph on the subject because, perhaps not surprisingly, the first question to my excellent officials was, "What does 'comitology' mean?" As with most other "ologies"—as it was once remarked in a famous advertisement—it is the science of committee working. It refers to the rather arcane procedure by which the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) is taking this on board; no doubt she will correct me if I get it wrong. Perhaps she would like to explain it to my hon. Friend—or perhaps not.
The essence of the science is that a process was agreed at Maastricht whereby the European Parliament eventually had the power of veto over proposals made in the form of directives by the Council of Ministers and the Commission. Under the present arrangements, the comitology procedure means that minor detail, not of itself considered to be of sufficient importance to be in the main text of a directive, could be altered simply by, in essence, a committee arrangement.
The European Parliament latched on to the idea that, if it had the power of veto over main directives but did not have the power to deal with the detail, it would leave them with an imperfect power. The current debate about comitology is whether we should extend to the European Parliament the right of veto not only in respect of—[Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is following this


because it is good stuff. The current debate is whether we should extend the right of veto to the minor detail of directives as well as to the directives themselves.
I hope that I can usefully summarise the Government view now—that was the short version. We believe that it would be more appropriate to deal with those matters at the intergovernmental conference that is due to be held in 1996. In all seriousness, that is my explanation and I hope that it will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). It is a fairly arcane subject, but the principle is pretty clear in this case.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am most grateful.

Ms Joan Walley: What does the Minister mean by a minor detail?

Mr. Norris: That is not a trick question—nor is it a difficult one. The answer is those details that would have been contained in the subsidiary regulations that follow on and support Council directives. Under the post-Maastricht arrangement, the directive would eventually be the subject of a veto exercised by the European Parliament and all sorts of ramifications would follow. Under the existing, pre-Maastricht arrangement the detail, which could have been altered by committee within the Community, clearly escapes the new veto power.
The question is the extent to which the European Parliament should be permitted to accrete that new power, which would go significantly beyond what was agreed at Maastricht.
I fear that the Parliament has used motor cycle power limits to extend a concept that is not directly related to that measure but has wider political implications. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government view is that the question should not be debated in this context, but at the intergovernmental conference in 1996.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Perhaps my hon. Friend could answer the question about which one or two of my constituents are most anxious. Is it correct that no decision affecting motor cyclists will be taken by the House this evening? The matter will be decided later, in the manner that he described.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right. No decisions will be taken on the subject tonight. I appreciate that most of my hon. Friends and the Opposition Members present are keener to move on to the next business. I hope that the House will allow me, therefore, to make some rapid progress and to outline the measure in front of us.

Ms Walley: May I press the Minister? What does he mean by a detail of that kind? Could not technical issues, which could have a great bearing on legislation in one way or another, be involved? Can he give us an example?

Mr. Norris: I do not think that it would be especially helpful for us to go into such detail. That is asking for the 45-minute précis, which I hope that the hon. Lady is not keen to hear. My hon. Friends are not keen to hear it either. They have obviously heard me before. Perhaps I may leave the hon. Lady with this thought. She is right. Is it not often said of legislation—as much in this House as elsewhere—that the devil is in the detail? Detailed matters are immensely technical, but they are also capable of making vast differences to the impact of legislation. To that extent, the proposition that the European Parliament advances is perfectly serious. The Government's position,

which will find favour on both sides of the House, is that we should consider comitology in the context of the 1996 IGC, rather than in relation to the legislation under consideration tonight.
We are considering the issues that flow from the type-approval arrangements for motor cycles throughout member states. That process is intended to establish a single Community-wide market in motor cycles as the market is very fragmented.
Type approval involves the approval of pre-production models or components by European Community certification agencies and checking the conformity of production in accordance with those types. Many of the measures are already in place, but there are two outstanding before the package can be completed and they are quite controversial.
The first is the draft directive on maximum power, maximum design speed and maximum torque. As hon. Members will know, it is proposed that a limit of 74 kw—100 brake horse power—should be set. That is roughly equivalent to a modern 750 cc machine. That proposal found favour with all the other member states apart from the United Kingdom as our excellent manufacturer, Triumph, would be significantly disadvantaged by it.

Mr. Peter Butler: As someone who has held a full motor cycle licence since my 16th birthday, and had the great pleasure of riding a Triumph 900 cc bike for a few days at Easter, I find the proposal perturbing. That motor cycle had well over 100 brake horse power, but was the safest, as well as the most powerful, machine that I had ridden in a moderately long career of riding and falling off motor cycles.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The history of the hon. Gentleman's motor cycling abilities is interesting, but interventions are supposed to be short and to the point.

Mr. Butler: Indeed, it is shortening and becoming more pointed by the moment. The Triumph company said that three of its models will have to come out: of production if the 100 brake horsepower limit is imposed. I urge my hon. Friend to do all that he can to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend was merely seeking to condense, in the pithy way of which he is so capable, an entire speech into one intervention.

Mr. Butler: I have got more.

Mr. Norris: I withdraw that remark. Apparently, my hon. Friend has more to say. His intervention was absolutely to the point. So that we are in no doubt, virtually all Triumph's models would fall foul of the proposed restriction and it would certainly have a very adverse effect on the company's production, which is increasing by leaps and bounds. All of us with any interest in the industry are delighted at that increase.
To put it simply and quickly, the United Kingdom alone among European Community countries objected to the limit. It found an ally in the European Parliament, which saw the logic of the UK proposals, to the extent that in May the Parliament voted for nine amendments on Second Reading, which deleted all references to the power limit and substituted a Commission study into the possibility of a link between power and accidents. That


is the crucial ground. The amendments together with the comitology amendment are the documents to which the motion refers.
In the light of an adverse opinion from the Commission, it fell to the Council of Ministers to decide whether unanimously to accept all the amendments. In the absence of unanimity, the Council convened a meeting of the conciliation committee—between its representatives and those of the European Parliament—with the object of reaching agreement on a joint text.
At the meeting on 18 October, representatives of the United Kingdom and the European Parliament argued strongly in favour of the power amendments and I am pleased to inform the House that a joint agreement was provisionally reached to proceed on the basis of those amendments.
The whole issue of comitology remained unresolved.

Mr. David Tredinnick: As my hon. Friend knows, I represent Triumph. My information is that the worst-case effect of the anti-tampering chapter would be that the model range would have to be cut from 10 to one.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in those matters because he has represented the company for some time. That information only serves to emphasise the seriousness of the proposal for Triumph, which is not the least of the reasons why we believe that it is wrong.
Our objective in the conciliation process will be to ensure that nothing is agreed which is inconsistent with the present comitology rules or prejudices the separate, wider discussions on comitology that are taking place between the institutions.
Against that background, and having resolutely opposed the power limits and succeeded in our objective, the Government consider that it would be folly if the Council and the European Parliament failed to agree—in the context of the power directive—what to do about comitology. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of conciliation on that. However, there is every hope that common sense will prevail.
The other chapters of the measure that are controversial, or that have excited interest, are the proposals on noise and emissions. They need to be seen against the backdrop of a policy by the UK and its EC partners to try to limit noise and emissions as far as practicable in line with technological developments. I assure the House that motor cycles are not being singled out in that respect. We simply aim, in practice, to apply sensible restrictions on motor cycles which are consistent with those that have applied to the heaviest goods vehicles over the past decade.
Let me make clear the extent of the reductions in pollution levels. They have now reached the point at which the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which reported fairly recently, has said there is now
only limited scope for further modifications to vehicles … to make them quieter".

That underlines how far we have moved. Stricter noise limits are to be introduced for all classes of four-wheeled vehicles from October 1996, resulting in a maximum level of 80 decibels, which is the same as that proposed for the largest motor cycles.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that if one listens to a BMW or a Yamaha FJ1200, one realises that if they are properly tuned they purr very quietly? They are very pleasant—

Mr. Butler: They are quieter than my hon. Friend's Lotus.

Mr. Fabricant: As my hon. Friend says, they are considerably quieter than my Lotus. Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept, however, that part of the problem is that the current laws are not being enforced by European countries? Surely that point should be addressed before we even attempt to achieve a 37 per cent. drop in noise level, which is what is being asked for in the EU document.

Mr. Norris: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will forgive me if I do not accept his invitation to speculate on what should be the practice in other countries because we are, of course, concerned with the implications of the directives here. My hon. Friend was, however, right to point out that when motor cycles are properly tuned and properly operated, there is no reason why they should present offensively in terms of noise. Responsible motor cyclists themselves are happy to accede to that. Problems often arise when motor cycles are either inappropriately altered, to which I shall refer in a moment, or simply badly maintained.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) agrees that although there is no case for discriminating against motor cyclists unreasonably—indeed, I have made it clear that I believe that they have an immensely valuable role to play and that, in the urban context, two wheels will generally consume far less space than four—there is no principle on which one could justify offering preferential arrangements concerning noise and emissions to motor cyclists as against the arrangements that are offered to motor cars.
A series of directives in recent years will result, with the introduction of the latest directive, in passenger car emissions having been reduced, in the space of only six years, by about 90 per cent. in respect of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, by 60 per cent. in respect of carbon monoxide and by 70 per cent. in respect of particulates. Similar reductions with respect to heavy diesel-engined vehicles, including buses and lorries, will have been achieved when the second stage of the directive comes into effect in October 1996.
Consequently, when we support the Commission's proposals, far from discriminating against motor cycles, we are applying an even-handed policy which reflects an increasing concern by the public at large for improvements in the environment. Against that background, we think that it would be wrong for motor cycles to receive preferential treatment. I shall not go into a great deal of detail on the proposals because the House would not greatly welcome that. Suffice it to say that I think that there is a reasonable level of agreement among the manufacturers and the representatives of the industry that the proposals are reasonable.
It may be worth pointing out that there are, of course, differences between the engines used in motor cycles and those used in cars. There is the issue of the catalytic converter which, since 1 January 1993, has been the basis for securing the large reductions of emissions in modern motor vehicles. The general presumption is that it would be desirable not to move to that—this is certainly the British view—in relation to motor cycles unless it proved absolutely necessary. The Germans take a slightly different view. We believe, however, that we can make a great deal of progress on that position simply by refining the current engineering techniques available to us.
The Government support the new proposals in both areas. We think that they are achievable within the time scale and that the economic cost is sensible. We do not believe that they will be to the detriment of motor cycle performance. The industry has advised the Department that the proposals can be met either by existing technology or by engine modifications. After-treatment systems, such as catalytic converters, will not be necessary. We are not entirely convinced that even more stringent exhaust measures can be justified in view of the low number of motor cycles in the UK in relation to the number of other vehicles. That underlines how we believe that conventional technology can solve the problem.
The remaining controversial chapter concerns anti-tampering. The principle there is fairly straightforward. We all understand why small motor cycles need to be protected from tampering. If they are not, people who are not allowed to ride large motor cycles because they do not have the appropriate licence simply tweak the motor cycles they have, which is dangerous for them and dangerous for other road users. We take the view, however, that anti-tampering is not an appropriate subject for the large motor cycle; that is not where the problem is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) knows perfectly well that interchangeability in this area is the key to the way in which the industry is developing. It would be futile to insist on anti-tampering measures in respect of larger machines when it is not clear what the objective of such legislation would be.

Sir Keith Speed: It would help the House and the Department's position if my hon. Friend would tell us where we have got on the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987, which was introduced as a private Member's Bill by the late Robert Adley, the former hon. Member for Christchurch. That bans and causes penalties for fitting illegal exhausts. I do not think that the Act is yet fully operative and I do not know of any prosecutions under it. The Act seems to be totally in line with everything that my hon. Friend is saying, provided that we can bring it into operation.

Mr. Norris: I fear that I cannot advise my hon. Friend precisely on the status of the Adley Act; I am aware of it. [Interruption.] I may, indeed, be able to tell my hon. Friend. The message is, however, so opaque that I will not convey it to him now for fear of misleading him. I will, of course, write to him.
The Act addresses exactly the issue, which is that there is a tendency with motor cycles for people to want to meddle with the standard equipment. There is, however, a much more important issue in relation to small motor cycles. Riders in certain categories are allowed to use only motor cycles up to a certain output limit. Tampering with

that output would allow them to ride motor cycles for which they are not qualified. It would, however, be almost impossible to detect such tampering because, to the naked eye, the model would look perfectly standard. That is why at the lower end of the power range, anti-tampering makes reasonable sense. What does not make sense—this is the position that we have wanted to take—is to extend that principle right through the power range. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth knows, the effect there is quite counter-productive.

Mr. Robert Key: Will my hon. Friend keep fighting for motor cycles in this country? I am sure that he has demonstrated tonight his mastery of the detail which contains the devil, as he has illustrated. When I was doing my hon. Friend's job, I learned that there was no substitute for meeting the kind and generous people who make up the Motorcycle Action Group and who educated me about motor cycling. Let us suppose that I were to ask them to arrange for my hon. Friend to ride pillion on a motor cycle from his constituency to his office. Would he accept?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend tempts me with that offer. I should probably need to qualify who the rider of the machine was. My experience of motor cycles came to a somewhat abrupt end around 1960 when Aigburth road, Liverpool and I had a rather closer acquaintance than I intended, since when I have stuck to four wheels. My hon. Friend is a persuasive advocate and, if I may say so in passing, he was also an excellent representative of the industry in the negotiations that he carried out which preceded our present position. On that basis, subject to all the usual warranties, with a substantial independent insurance and, indeed, the obtaining of whatever last rites are suitable in the circumstances, I shall consider my hon. Friend's request favourably. That is about as diplomatic as I can be at this time of night.
In summary, the current EC discussion by officials preceding the Council negotiations has shown that only some progress is being made towards easing the restrictions on anti-tampering. There is no great indication of support for the UK's position. However, the rapporteur to the European Parliament committee which deals with economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy has recently expressed support for our view and has also proposed excluding category B and C machines. Obviously, I am normally referring to category D machines. We intend to support his proposal. We think that he is on exactly the right lines. There is also the issue, which I shall not discuss in great detail, of the chapter on electro-magnetic compatibility. That subject has largely eluded me due to its massive technical significance, nor is it a subject on which there is any great disagreement in the Community.
Overall, I hope that the House will agree that we should press ahead to secure EC type approval—if necessary by accepting those chapters which are not contentious and leaving to one side the chapters on power limits, noise and emissions, which may be contentious. That is in the best interests of Triumph and in the best interests of the Community as a whole. I must make it clear to the House—I know that this is what several of my hon. Friends want to hear—that we are not prepared to arrive at unanimity at any price. We shall continue to ensure that


the particular needs of the UK industry and of British motor cyclists are strongly represented and, indeed, are met. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Joan Walley: I am not sure of the circumstances under which I would ride pillion in the way in which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) just suggested. However, it would certainly not be when the Minister was driving.
Labour Members welcome the bulk of the proposals and support the attempts that have been made to safeguard the interests of motor cyclists and the motor cycle industry. It is unfortunate that that entire complex, technical and drawn-out debate—we can see how technical it is if we look at the great weight of volumes in front of us—about how we seek to harmonise type approval of motor cycles throughout the European Union has become completely entangled with a much wider political debate on Europe after Maastricht. The debate tonight, which should have been solely about transport regulations, has become one that carries us to the heart of the argument abut democracy. I am thankful, however, that it has not been hijacked—as I thought it may have been at the start of our deliberations.

Mr. Butler: Does the hon. Lady accept that only one member state currently legally forbids tampering and powerful motor cycles, such as those in excess of 100 bhp: France? Surely to seek to enforce harmonisation with only one country out of the whole of the European Union cannot be a proper way forward. I should appreciate her support for that view.

Ms Walley: If the hon. Gentleman will wait to hear what I have to say on this mater, the Labour party's position will become abundantly clear. Our view has much regard to the motor bike industry in this country, especially the super-bikes and the position of Triumph.
The Government's proposals in respect of European Union directives 10904/93, 8037/94 and 8618/94 are none the less welcome and I say that categorically. I doubt that we should have wanted to have changed them. We support the single market and we want to apply and set standards. But we do not want to set standards in such a way that we price motor bikes out of the market. We recognise that it is not a single-sector market and we want to maintain the use that is currently made of motor cycles in rural as well as in urban areas. We recognise the important part that motor-bikes, motor cycles and three-wheel vehicles play in the entire integrated transport policy that we want to see. Now that a framework directive has been agreed, the 100-dollar question is, of course, how the Council of Ministers steers its way to seeking agreement on the many technical regulations which Europe needs to approve and which would need to be incorporated in UK law through the adoption of specific regulations.
Like the Minister, we have no problem at all with nine out of the 12 chapters in the proposal: those relating to tyres, lighting, external protectors, mirrors, fuel tanks, safety belts and so on. But we question the current proposals in respect of noise, anti-tampering and emissions. We accept that noise is a problem, especially when the motor bike is driven or maintained irresponsibly. We need to look carefully at what is feasible in the long

term. We should support research that addressed the contribution that all variables could make to reducing noise. We also want to see an immediate reduction of decibel levels. I was pleased that the Minister referred to that in his introductory comments.
Anti-tampering is, of course, related to power restriction. There is no doubt that the powerful motor cycle lobby deserves to be congratulated on the campaign that it has waged to secure a future for the super-bike and for British manufacturing.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady take it from me, as someone who has had a Yamaha throbbing between my legs while driving through the streets of Turkey, that, in fact, extra power and extra acceleration get one out of difficulty and not into it? I appreciate the value that she places on it.

Ms Walley: I think that the House will note what the hon. Gentleman says.
I also very much welcome the voluntary agreement that has been made in conjunction with the International Motorcycle Manufacturers Association, which looks at the relevance of the proposals for smaller vehicles, but which recognises that the manufacturing processes of the super-bike can survive. That is important. I am not so sure about similar compromise over emissions. I am very concerned that we ensure that we follow through the recommendations of the 18th report of the Royal Commission on transport and the environment. That is our most recent reminder that industry has to find a way in which to reduce emissions and that our perpetual objective has to be the production of even cleaner vehicles backed up by proper use.
Whether the proposals from Brussels are achievable by 1997 with those issues is a matter, therefore, for urgent and careful consideration. We must reduce emissions in the shortest possible time scale. We need targets and they need to be agreed across the Community. But, by the same token, those targets have to be realistic in quality and time. Equally, however stringent the controls applying to the motor cycle industry, which results in a small but none the less significant amount of carbon monoxide and other damaging pollutants, the same requirements must be levelled at other vehicles, and, indeed, other industrial processes.
I expect the Minister to set out how he expects to balance the interests of the industry with the equally compelling demands for environmental protection. I suspect that we shall return to that issue time and again. The problem is that all the modifications that we want to see to proposals from Brussels are part and parcel, as we have already heard, of the whole discussion about comitology and democracy.
Is not it ironic, therefore, that this debate is taking place not only as the Government's weakness and disunity over Europe is exposed, but after the previous debate on setting up a Deregulation Committee, which will be the basis of getting rid of regulations in future? Despite all our criticisms, and whatever we may say from the Labour Benches, at least Parliament, through its elected representatives, will have some say, however limited. I suspect that the Government will allow Labour Members nothing more than the opportunity to say that we disapprove of the rubber-stamping that they will give to


wiping regulations off the statute book. I refer to the debate that we have just had about setting up a special Committee.
Although those who are elected to the European Parliament have a proper part to play in the process of making primary legislation, the same cannot be said of their accountability to the people who elect them in respect of subsequent technical amendments to that legislation. I was interested to hear that the Minister could not define what the technical issues might be. I could give him many definitions.

Mr. Norris: May I say in my own defence that it is not that I could not give the hon. Lady such definitions, but that many of my hon. Friends advised me in the strongest terms that I should resist the temptation to do so?

Ms Walley: Obviously, the Minister has to make up his own mind about to whom he listens and to whom he is accountable. Technical amendments could easily follow primary legislation from the European Union and have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. That could make life very difficult for many manufacturers in this country.
The right of elected Members to have a say and to be consulted about future amendments, regardless of how technical the changes may or may not be, is fundamental to our democracy. That problem was not resolved by the Maastricht treaty, but the issue has surfaced and become central to this evening's debate about two or three-wheel vehicles.
We cannot support the last part of the motion. We believe that whatever is agreed must satisfy the principles of democracy and accountability. Parliamentarians, whether in this Parliament or in the European Parliament, cannot be denied the right to represent the people who elect them.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that point. Is not it excellent that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who has a Toyota factory in her constituency, drives a Toyota? Does the hon. Lady agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, should drive a Reliant Robin three-wheeler, which is made in Tamworth?

Ms Walley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has managed to confuse the issue even further. In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, particularly those who ride motor bikes—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) wishes to make a contribution—I do not wish to confuse the issue.
I should expect the Government— who have given us the "quango state" where Ministers are no longer accountable to anyone, even when they are found by the High Court to be in breach of their own law on compensation to victims of crime, and who have entrusted their massive deregulation programme to a committee of their own appointees and so-called "technical experts" who sat on the deregulation task force— to argue against the European Parliament having its say at each and every opportunity. It is entirely consistent with the Government's stance on accountability.
The Minister may ask what that has to do with the debate, but it has everything to do with it because the debate is about accountability. Fortunately, on this occasion what is written on the Order Paper has been overtaken by events. We cannot support the Government's position on comitology, but as that proposal has now been superseded by conciliation talks between the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Community, we have no difficulty supporting the main part of the motion.
Whether the whole motor cycle package falls or proceeds will depend very much upon whether the European Union supports the principle of democracy at all levels—local, national and international. We want to ensure that there is further parliamentary scrutiny of the three controversial parts of the legislation. For those reasons, we shall not oppose the proposals.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I am very proud to represent the new British motor cycle industry: the Triumph plant at Hinckley. I begin by congratulating the management and workers at the Triumph factory on their great achievements over the past few years. I also congratulate Conservative-controlled Hinckley and Bosworth borough council on making it possible for the factory to move to Hinckley and have such great success.
Nothing better illustrates the failure of socialist policies and the success of Conservative policies than the history of Triumph. The House may recall that the now right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spent £4.2 million of public money on the Meriden motor cycle co-operative, which tried unsuccessfully to revive the old Triumph firm. From the start, the operation was plagued by inefficiency and union demarcation until its eventual collapse in 1983. It is remarkable that Triumph, like the phoenix, should have risen from the ashes. Garry McDonnell, a fitter at the new Triumph plant, has said:
We don't need unions … I worked at Meriden and what a mess that was. Nobody seemed to know what was going on".
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited the plant, and he found— his findings are relevant to the motion— a factory which is ready to expand to a capacity of 30,000 machines a year and which is expected to bring 400 new jobs to the area. However, the Liberal councillors of Hinckley and Bosworth borough council opposed the company's expansion in Hinckley and, as a consequence, I believe that Triumph almost moved its entire works away from the area. I hope that the electorate will remember that in the local elections.
Triumph intends to build more than 12,000 vehicles world wide for the 1995 model year. Some 80 per cent. will be exported to 28 markets around the world. The number of employees at the factory has doubled in the past year from 160 to 330. Whereas in 1991 the factory produced only two models, in the three-year period since then, it has produced 10.
I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Minister the problems that the proposed European legislation could create for the factory. From conception to production, Triumph is now capable of creating a new motor cycle machine in 18 months—the fastest development rate in the world. The company has subsidiaries in Germany, France and America, and it has now started exporting to America. Triumph is now planning for an expansion into


a second state-of-the-art facility in the immediate future, and on 24 July this year the new Triumph motor cycles raced at Donnington for the first time.
The proposed multi-directive for motor cycle whole vehicle-type approval would have three serious consequences. My hon. Friend the Minister has addressed some of those consequences, and I shall expand on them a little more.
In its present form, the anti-tampering chapter would destroy the modular manufacturing process—a Lego process devised by Triumph—by disallowing the use of certain interchangeable parts in the engine. The industry has proposed that that chapter be restricted to small motor cycles and mopeds, as my hon. Friend knows. Triumph would like to see support for that proposal.
On the noise issue, Triumph believes that motor cycles of 175 cc or greater that achieve 82 or 80 decibels (A) are sufficiently quiet. Motor cycle noise pollution is an issue that involves not only the original equipment supplied by the manufacturer, but environmental conditions and individual driving styles. Because of that, it is impossible to determine what the effects of further proposed reductions will be.
In Triumph's opinion, after-market replacement silencers are making a large contribution to motor cycle noise problems. In many instances, the manufacturer's silencer is replaced by one that does not provide equivalent noise protection. That area requires greater control. Triumph believes that further research should be conducted before more severe noise level reductions are considered. The company has made a substantial contribution of time and money to research and my hon. Friend the Minister might like to follow that example.
Pollution has been mentioned, The majority of motor cycles are small two-stroke vehicles which are used because they consume little fuel and are inexpensive compared with larger machines. Making those vehicles comply with the noise limitations will increase their price by 25 per cent. because additional equipment will be required. That will destroy the market for an inexpensive, low-fuel consuming vehicle.
The British motor cycle industry has been reborn in the form of Triumph, and this is a crucial time for its development because it is the first year during which it will export vehicles to America. Triumph believes that the proposed chapters would seriously damage its hopes for continued growth and success. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the harm that that would cause not only to manufacturers but to users.
Triumph now has a range of 10 machines based on its modular construction, which is as simple as a system of child's building blocks. It gives the company the ability to develop quickly new models that are in line with the requirements of the market. That principle is threatened with extinction by the anti-tampering chapter. It is in the interests of Britain for this measure to be examined in the most sympathetic light by the Minister. On behalf of all my constituents and those who work at and manage Triumph I hope that he will do so.

Mr. David Chidgey: I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that many motor cycle users,

including members of the Motor Cycle Action Group and others who have been mentioned, have expressed a great deal of anxiety about the implications of these European Union documents. The detail and extent of the proposed restrictions could lead one to conclude that the European Commission is seeking to become the designer of motor cycles.
It appears from the detail of the proposals that there is a clear strategy to reinforce the policy of limiting the power of motor cycles to 74 kw. That strategy is built on a range of subtle, minor but critical restrictions on engine design. For example, it is proposed that manufacturers should be prohibited from designing motor cycles that are able to accommodate a range of interchangeable parts. That restriction would apply if such interchangeability allowed the power of a particular model to be enhanced by more than 10 per cent.
We know that there is no evidence linking motor cycle power to accidents, and that on a number of occasions the European Parliament rejected the proposed power limit. Clearly, this new proposal to restrict interchangeability is designed to support such a power limit through the prevention of the interchangeability of parts. It seems to be a back-door attempt to avoid the opposition of the European Parliament to the imposition of the 74 kw limit, and it should be resisted.
Interchangeability of parts is a key factor for manufacturers who produce a range of motor cycles. Triumph's product range, costs and manufacturing efficiency depend on the modular design concept, and the foundation of that company's success has been the interchangeability of parts in the modular design process.
I am advised that since the new Triumph factory was established about three years ago, sales of motor cycles have been a great success and are predicted to pass 20,000 machines by the end of this year. The combined effect of the type-approval motor cycle proposals could be to eliminate some highly successful models from the company's range. It would reduce the sales volume by more than a third and the consequent loss of revenue could approach £20 million, to which must be added the loss of business to the numerous suppliers and sub-contractors who provide components to the main company.
The loss of business and jobs that the proposed restrictions on interchangeability would create, if implemented, is clearly unacceptable. The House would wish to be advised that Ministers have been able to assure the motor cycle industry and users that those concerns have been addressed and resolved.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am delighted that the Government have taken a robust line on the proposals in the multidirective from the Commission. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has reinforced its reputation by acting as a brake on the untrammelled ambitions of the Commission to extend its role and intrude unnecessarily into this area. I am glad that in their approach to motor cycling in recent years the Government have done a great deal to improve safety, especially on training.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I pay tribute to the Motor Cycle Action Group, as well as to the British Motorcyclists Federation. I have certainly always found their representatives to be highly responsible and well-informed proponents of their case.
I should like to deal with the proposals that are objectionable. It is difficult to justify the proposal on tampering, even if it did not hit particularly at British manufacturers. It would certainly prevent riders from even legally upgrading their machines, thus reducing their freedom. It can reasonably be said that freedom is an intrinsic part of motor cycling, and many motor cyclists like to work on their machines and modify them. Sometimes that has regrettable effects, especially when people fit unacceptable silencers, about which I shall speak later. The freedom of motor cycle users to modify their machines should not be unnecessarily attacked in this way—provided the modifications remain always within the law.
Forbidding the interchangeability of parts would certainly affect Triumph in particular, but that approach would also be detrimental to many small United Kingdom manufacturers. This proposal could appropriately be applied to small motor cycles, especially restricted machines such as mopeds, but it is difficult to see how its extension to larger machines could he justified in any way.
There is no scientific evidence that the proposed power limit that the Commission seeks to introduce will increase safety. I am glad that that proposal seems to have been put off, at least until further investigations have been conducted.
I appreciate the perception of many people that motor cycles, as manufactured, can be noisy. Anybody who has attended the demonstrations by the industry will be aware that nearly all noisy machines are those that have been illegally modified by the fitting of after-market, unacceptable exhaust systems. If we enforced the existing law properly, we would eliminate nearly all the nuisance to which people refer. It is notable that in many countries that support these proposals nobody has even begun to seek to enforce the law as it stands.
All the evidence shows that motor cycles contribute only a tiny proportion of vehicle emissions. A figure of 3 per cent. has been quoted. I do not believe that it is necessary to adopt exaggerated means of limiting emissions. I note the view of the British Motorcyclists Federation that the proposed emission limits could not be achieved without the incorporation of catalytic converters. There are clear differences of view between the Department and that organisation on this matter, and I hope that they can be explored further.
In conclusion, the motor cycle is the means of personal powered transport that does the least damage to the environment. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, it certainly takes up very little space.
The motor cycle is the means to jobs—running into seven figures—and enjoyment for many people in Britain . I believe that the multi-directive is wrong to seek in effect to discourage the use of motor cycles by pushing up the price beyond the reach of many people.

Mr. John Fraser: As a practising motor cyclist who has ridden motor cycles ranging from a Corgi 50 cc to my current 1,000 cc, I shall say just a few words as a member of the all-party motor cycling group.
Our position on tampering is exactly right. Anti-tampering regulations should apply at the lower end of the range where people are learning and there is a risk of accident and death. Provided that problem is dealt with, there is no case whatever for regulations to apply to motor cycles of more than 125 cc. If people want power, they will buy it. There is a huge range available from 125 cc to 1,200 cc bikes. If people want it, they will get it and tampering is irrelevant.
The second issue is noise. I see no point in intensifying regulations on noise. We have to enforce the existing legislation. Noise mostly comes from smaller bikes. Many towns on the Mediterranean sound as if they are occupied from 5 o'clock in the morning to 4 o'clock the following morning by giant bumble bees and wasps as people ride up and down on small motor cycles and mopeds that have been adapted not to achieve as much speed as possible but to create as much noise as possible. We have to concentrate not on intensifying present limits, as most motor bikes do not create noise problems, but on enforcing existing regulations.
In respect of emission and noise control, the Minister should remember, first, that if regulations are applied too intensely they will damage a valuable and growing British industry.
Secondly, perhaps the motor cycle should possess some small advantage against the motor car, if it is not to the detriment of the community generally. Motor cycles occupy very little space, they consume much less fuel and they are much more efficient in terms of their use of the roads. If regulations push up the cost of manufacture and purchase, instead of buying motor cycles people will be shifted into buying cheaper old bangers that are much less environmentally friendly, consume more fuel and take up more road space.
The Minister has to have in mind, first, protecting British industry, and secondly, ensuring that the proper balance is struck between vehicles that take up very little space and are pretty efficient.

Mr. Norris: We have had a good short debate. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) wishes to give uncritical support to extensions of European powers against those of the European Parliament and I am sure that remark will be noted outside the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made some sensible points on behalf of Triumph and I hope that he will be assured that, to a large extent, he was pushing at a open door because we understand the position of Triumph and we certainly do not want to do anything to frustrate it.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) was quite right just to mark the card on the extent to which interchangeability and anti-tampering are related and how interchangeability could be a threat to power output. We fully understand that point and will, of course, ensure that it is taken on board in resisting the Commission's proposal.
I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for putting it in this way, but the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is a well-known motor cyclist and on this occasion he spoke eminent common sense. He was right about anti-tampering and made the point that when one is considering emissions and noise it is sensible to get the issue into proper balance. That is how we have tried to approach the matter—not by insisting on onerous regulations that would put motor cycles at a disadvantage to cars, but simply by recognising that, in general, society is seeking less harmful emission levels from all vehicles and less noisy vehicles. Not many hon. Members will disagree with him about the bumble bee effect, which we all understand.
The summary of our approach, which appears to have found favour with the House, is simply that we will be protecting British interests, particularly those of Triumph. That is not only the right thing to do from our domestic standpoint, but also represents a commonsense approach to issues such as power limits. We shall continue to press for what I believe to be a reasonable position on both noise and emissions—one for which there has been general support this evening—with the qualification that we do not want to be over-zealous.
We have taken a commonsense position on anti-tampering that appears to have found favour. On that basis I am happy to commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10904/93, 8037/94 and 8618/94 relating to European Community type-approval of motorcycles; supports the principle of a single market in motorcycles which such a process is designed to achieve; shares the Government's view that amendments must be sought to Document No. 10904/93 if it is not to impact adversely and unnecessarily on motorcyclists and the motorcycle industry; supports the European Parliament's amendments set out in Document No. 8037/94 on the deletion of a motorcycle power limit; but opposes the European Parliament's amendment in that Document seeking a role for it in 'comitology'.

Parliament

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.
As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a sense, the debate is simply consequential on the debate that we had, in November 1993, on the pay of Members of Parliament. It reflects no new decision, no new policy, but simply what was then announced as the basis on which the pay of Minister and others covered by the order would be settled from January 1995 and each year thereafter.
I went over the background in considerable detail last November, and I shall recall it only briefly today. There are three elements in that background. First, hon. Members, and of course Ministers, had accepted a freeze in their pay in January 1993, when they would normally have expected to receive the same 3.9 per cent. as had been agreed for the relevant civil service grades from August 1992.
Secondly, the actual linking mechanism for relating hon. Members' pay to that of civil servants in effect had ceased to be workable because of the move to performance-related pay in the civil service.
Thirdly, in asking hon. Members to accept the 1993 freeze, I had undertaken both to re-establish a workable link and to ensure that Members' pay levels would not be reduced permanently by comparison with those civil service links.
Thus a year ago I proposed, and the House agreed by a large majority, a new resolution which did two things. One was, as promised, to re-establish a workable linkage defined as the average pay increase each year for civil service grades 5 to 7. The other was to ask for yet further restraint. That is an important point as, by then under such a link, hon. Members were due both the 3.9 per cent. civil service increase of August 1992 and the 1.5 per cent. civil service increase of August 1993.
The House was asked, and agreed, to take 2.7 per cent. of those combined amounts in January 1994 and to defer the other 2.7 per cent. to January 1995, at which point hon. Members would also receive whatever increase had been agreed for the civil servants from August 1994, which turned out to be 2 per cent.
The resolution passed in November 1993 to establish those arrangements, which is what will lead to the Members' pay increase of 4.7 per cent. in January 1995, could not in itself provide for Ministers pay as well: that has required this order. The primary legislation does not allow it to be dealt with in that way. It requires this order. I said at the time, and I quote from the Official Report, leaving out only a few words for the sake of clarity:


I should make it clear to the House that the Government think that the right course henceforth is for the salaries of Ministers … to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as Members".—[Official Report, 3 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 459.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had a chance for mature reflection on whether the "benefits" that the gesture brought have turned out to be worth the hassle.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the cautious thing for me to say is that I shall continue to reflect on that and that I shall be willing to listen to anything that the hon. Gentleman might wish to observe on the point.
The proposal on linkage between Members and civil servants and between Ministers and Members and, therefore, Ministers and civil servants was neither queried nor opposed. It was, I think, regarded as entirely sensible by the great majority of people present or who thought about it. I am grateful to have that confirmed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) from the Opposition Front Bench. As I have already said, the order now before the House simply implements what I said a year ago.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the things that sticks in the gullet of people outside this place is that since last November the Government decided to tell signal workers in the summer of this year that they could not engage in a catching-up process. Yet that is what the Leader of the House wants to do for Ministers. People cannot stomach the idea that signal workers could not engage in a catching-up process to get more than 5.7 per cent. The Government told British Rail not to pay them. To request a catching-up process for Ministers when others were prevented from engaging in the same process is to have double standards.

Mr. Newton: That is not true, for a reason which I shall come to in a few moments. To describe what we are doing as a catching-up process in the sense that the hon. Gentleman means, certainly under the terms on which the original freeze was accepted, is not accurate.
The points that I was about to come to are also the key points in respect of Members' pay. The key points are the same for both Ministers' and Members' pay because they have been tied together. There are four points. The pay settlement for January 1995 is 2 per cent., reflecting what was agreed for civil servants from August 1994. The other 2.7 per cent. is a delayed payment—some of it delayed from as long ago as January 1993, two years ago, as it were—reflecting earlier civil service settlements.
The next two points are perhaps the key points for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Over the three years involved, the pay of Members of Parliament and Ministers has been restrained to exactly the same extent as that of civil servants, but—I come to the crunch in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point—because their payments have been delayed, in part by up to two years, Members of Parliament and Ministers have lost, permanently, some £2,000 and £4,000 respectively by comparison with their civil service links. That is a permanent loss. It is not something that has been made up. It is money that has gone for good. The rates are going back to what they would have been by comparison with the civil service, but there has been a substantial, actual,

financial loss along the way. That cannot be described as a catching-up process, as the hon. Member for Bolsover has described it.

Mr. Skinner: For three months in the summer of this year, when the Government were holding back their wages and telling British Rail not to pay them, signal workers said that they had lost wages over a considerable period because they had lost money in comparison to other grades in the railway industry and outside. All they were saying is what the Leader of the House is now saying on behalf of Ministers. Signal workers said, "We want the money because otherwise we will lose it for ever." They have not got it.

Mr. Newton: I have already made it clear that there is a significant difference. If I remember rightly—I have not checked the figure—the basic pay award to the signalmen in the settlement was 2.5 per cent., which is rather more than the settlement for this year for Members of Parliament and Ministers.
Before I conclude, I should of course make it clear that, although I have referred to Ministers' pay for reasons of simplicity, the order covers not only Ministers but the Opposition Leaders in both Houses, three Opposition Whips in the Commons, the Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords and Madam Speaker. Ah, Madam Speaker, you are here. I am glad to point out that there is a pay increase here. The same increase is also paid in the Commons to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and to the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, who has just left the Chair, and to the Chairman and the Principal Deputy Chairmen of Committees in the other place.
The arrangements for those in the other place are, however, slightly different, because they do not receive a reduced parliamentary salary as those of us in the Commons do. They will receive an increase equivalent to the aggregate cash increase received by their Commons counterparts.
Madam Speaker, just as I continue to believe that the arrangements for Members' pay agreed last year were sensible and right, so I believe that this proposal to determine Ministers' pay on exactly the same basis is one which the House should endorse.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I have no interest to declare in the order and nothing that I say will affect your position, Madam Speaker, because I think you should be paid more. I think you are so popular outside the House that if there were a referendum you would be elected the nation's first president. That is the nature of the stature that you have gained as our Speaker.
I agreed with virtually everything that the Leader of the House said. We have arrived at a barmy position. We are here debating something that was decided a long time ago. When it was decided then, the Government and, I suppose, the House, got bad publicity. We will get it again for doing the same thing. So we have arrived at an inexcusable position. I do not know why we have not amended the main legislation and done something along the lines that we talked about earlier this evening in respect of the corner-cutting of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 so that we could get rid of this demeaning debate—not bury it. We have dispensed with such debates for many of the general arrangements for


Members of Parliament, I do not know. I am surprised that the Leader of the House has not had an opportunity to deal with it.

Mr. Newton: I want to find out whether there is an offer here. It is not that I have legislation in mind, but I should like to know what the position is. If we introduced primary legislation on the matter, would we have the co-operation of the Opposition in putting it through speedily?

Mr. Rooker: We would use our best endeavours to make sensible arrangements for payments to Members of the House, whether they are in Government or on the Back Benches. If the Leader of the House could get Jopling organised well before the House rises for Christmas, we might consider the position. It is not our job to negotiate across the Dispatch Box, but the Leader of the House gets the message.
Matters are made worse for the Government when clearly they plant stories in newspapers, such as that in The Sunday Times of 13 November, which had the headline:
Cabinet split over move to cut large pay rises for ministers.
The only reason why such a headline arrives in a newspaper is that members of the Cabinet have briefed the press. The Government bring it upon themselves. It is not my hon. Friends or anyone else who cause the difficulty. The Sunday Times reported something that made me think, "There is no new decision there." The House debated the issue last November, as the Leader of the House rightly said, but members of the Cabinet had obviously been on the telephone causing trouble for someone.
I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years as both a Government and an Opposition Back Bencher. So I know that it is difficult to write job descriptions for Ministers. I do not know what they do. My constituents often wonder what they do. They see what you do, Madam Speaker, keeping us in order on a daily basis, but they do not know what Ministers do.
A couple of days ago there was an analysis in The Guardian of the salaries of people doing different jobs. It listed the job and the age of the person doing it. Ministers are usually middle-aged. It listed the salaries. The ministerial salary is between £19,000 and £55,000. The next point concerned what the job entailed. For Ministers, it is obviously doing what Tory central office says or what the Maples memorandum dictates. Qualifications came next on the list. For Ministers, it is either none or an ability to say yes.
The next point concerns pay rises. I do not want to go into the background dealt with by the Leader of the House. What he said was correct. I did not notice a single person outside the House during the period when we were on a pay freeze saying, "Look what an example Members of Parliament have set," and calling upon his members or employers to do the same. I see no reason why people should, but that does not behove us to say, "Look what we are doing. Follow our example." We know that will not be done. We must have a more mature and civilised way of settling pay in Britain, not just for Members of Parliament, but for health visitors, home helps, gatekeepers, cleaners and managing directors. We need a

more civilised arrangement spread, throughout society, than we have. The pecking order fixed at certain levels years ago should not remain immutable forever.
The next thing that The Guardian touched on was prospects of poachability. If we have a general election before Christmas, Ministers may be out of office by 22 December, which is the first available working Thursday that can be used if they fail next week. They are all pretty tainted, so I do not give much for their prospects of poachability once they are ex-Ministers.
The final question asked whether employers were worth their pay. For Ministers, I would say on productivity no, on responsibility yes. That is where I draw the distinction. The productivity of Ministers has been pathetic. There are too many of them. They have got rid of much of their responsibility for looking after public money—£46 billion looked after by non-elected quangos. Ministers are no longer responsible for that, they simply pass our letters on to the chief executives of the quangos and we cannot get genuine accountability for the quangos. But, on their ultimate responsibility, the answer must be yes. The Government must have a real problem because they now have to employ part-time dentists as Ministers to make up the numbers.
This is my first day in the House this week, and I make no apology for that. I came here today via my constituency and the remarkable Dudley, West constituency. I have taken some time this week to listen to the good people of Dudley, West. I have talked to them about the business of the House and what has happened in the past 15 years. I have listened to their worries for the future for their families. I told them that, on Thursday, I would be coming to the House for a debate on Ministers' salaries and I asked them what they thought about that.
I offer the Leader of the House a few choice comments from the Tory voters in Dudley, West. They say that Ministers have been in power for too long; they are complacent; they have lost a sense of direction; they have failed to fulfil their promises; they are clumsy at implementing policy; they shoot themselves in the foot. We pay them £19,000 to £55,000 for that. Those are exactly the phrases that John Maples heard from Tory voters, which he published in his memo. They are exactly the kind of things that Tory voters in Dudley, West are saying and something should be done about it.
We could call for fewer Ministers to share out the kitty on a more even basis. We could call for more Ministers to contribute from their salaries, as I call on all Members to do, to the give-as-you-earn charity pay-roll scheme operated by the Fees Office. When I checked two years ago, some 55 Members were contributing, and I declare an interest as one of them. When I checked this week, the figure was only 43 out of 651. I am not saying that the other hon. Members are not giving to charity, but we are trying to encourage millions of people in Britain to give to charity through their employer. The legislation making that possible was agreed on a cross-party basis and Members of the House are setting a pathetic example in respect of that.
I do not say that I do not intend to vote myself if there is a vote, although I see no need for one, but I remind Conservative Members, in case any of them are minded to seek to make divisions on the Opposition Benches, that by and large people of my ilk do not spend their time in industry seeking to remove from other people their existing pay. I can remember during my service in the


House one occasion when Conservative Members of Parliament ganged up and voted to reduce the salary of a Labour Member of Parliament, and they carried the vote. They carried the vote to reduce the salary of Eric Varley by £1,000 in about 1978. Labour Members returned the following day and the matter was redressed. Conservative Members did not waste any time in saying that the salary of a Labour Member of Parliament should be voted down. It is true that he happened to be a member of the Cabinet. He was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It was their attempt to have a go at him, and they used the means of reducing a Member's salary to do so. I hope that Conservative Members will never think of doing that again.

Sir Terence Higgins: There can be no doubt that this is a sensitive issue, perhaps even more sensitive than that of the pay of Members of Parliament. It is not surprising that that is so because the absolute level of pay in this case seems to many of our constituents, particularly pensioners, to be something of which they could only dream. It follows necessarily that there is never a good moment to increase Ministers' pay. None the less, for reasons that I shall put forward, I believe that it is extremely important that we should do so.
If there is one lesson that we have to learn from recent experience, it is the fact that if Members and Ministers take a pay freeze, it is unlikely to receive a line of publicity in any national paper. The idea that any wage negotiator, trade union or otherwise, will make the slightest difference to their wage claim as a result of that is utterly unrealistic.
However, when the adjustment is made to compensate for the freeze, there will undoubtedly be massive publicity of a kind to which I shall refer in a moment. The effect on pay settlements and on union leaders rushing round saying that they must have a similar increase is great. The whole thing is asymmetrical and the net effect of the freeze and what we are proposing this evening is, if anything, to encourage rather than discourage wage settlements outside. That is the simple point that I want to make. We should resume the link because we must have some way of showing that we wish not to decide our own pay but to relate it to what is happening outside.
I want briefly to say a word or two about the increase in ministerial pay in relation to inflation, civil servants, Members of Parliament and the population as a whole. First, with regard to inflation, headlines last week declared, "Pay increases for Members of Parliament well above the rate of inflation." They compared the increase to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred, part of which is anyway a deferred payment from an earlier period, with the current level of inflation. That is clearly rubbish. It must be compared with the date of the previous increase and, in this case, the date of the pay freeze and allowing for the subsequent staging of the increase. If one does that, far from being well above the level of inflation, it is near enough in line with inflation, but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, with an important qualification.
That brings me to the question of the pay increase in relation to civil servants and, in particular, those with whom ministerial pay has, in a sense, been compared. If one does that, because of the time lags in the ministerial pay increases compared with those of the civil servants,

it is not the case that they have caught up. The reality is, as my right hon. Friend said, that Cabinet Ministers have lost £4,000 in hard cash once and for all. That will never be made up. Therefore, even in that respect the link has not been made.
The pay of Ministers has increased even more slowly than that of ordinary Members of Parliament and the differential has been constantly narrowing. In those terms, the Prime Minister's salary has increased less than that of members of the Cabinet, the Financial Secretary and Under-Secretaries of State.
With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I regret that he followed the example of the former Prime Minister when she was in office, in not taking the whole increase. That is a bad example to follow. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the additional pay that he receives as Leader of the Opposition. However, it seems a subtle distinction to take that increase but not the rise that was anyway deferred from a previous decision.
The squeezing of differentials has seriously affected those further down the scale. It will be increasingly difficult to attract high-quality recruits to ministerial office. The decision of the Leader of the Opposition not to take his increase squeezes the differentials further and provides less headroom. Anyone who has worked in industry, as I have, knows that it is dangerous not to have the headroom to be able to give appropriate increases to people further down the line.
It has been suggested that ministerial pay should be linked with productivity, and a number of my constituents say that the pay of Members of Parliament should relate to inflation. The startling inflation figure of only 7.8 per cent. over the past three years compares with 56 per cent. inflation under three years of Labour Government. The present Government can take credit for that, and might even argue for a reasonable pay increase for reducing inflation to its present level, which is of vital importance to my constituents. In productivity terms, the increase can be justified.
Figures that I received from the Library today take a serious and analytical view of certain statistics. There are some minor footnotes and qualifications, but the figures that I want to quote will not seriously mislead the House. I will, as I did in the debate on the pay of Members of Parliament, compare the position since I entered the House 30 years ago, in 1964, with the present.
Allowing for changes in the retail prices index and at 1994 prices, the real income of the Prime Minister has fallen 59 per cent. The income of Cabinet Ministers has fallen 60 per cent. and that of Under-Secretaries of State, 39 per cent. Members of Parliament are, in real terms, just about back where they were when I entered the House.
Throughout the intervening period, the real pay of Members of Parliament and, to a far greater extent, of Ministers has fallen way below the 1964 figure. In the country as a whole, average real incomes have increased nearly 80 per cent. Over a longer period, which is a reasonable way to view the matter, the income of a Cabinet Minister has fallen 60 per cent. while average real incomes have increased 80 per cent. To take the productivity argument, Ministers of whichever party has been in power—although most improvements have taken


place under a Conservative Government—could justify an increase in ministerial pay. Differentials have been enormously eroded.
I am seriously concerned about recruitment to the House and to ministerial office. When I entered the House during the Macmillan period, it was generally recognised that no one could afford to become an Under-Secretary of State at the pay rates then prevailing unless he had a substantial income. That precluded a large number of candidates or reduced new Ministers to utter penury. It is important to attract the right people to the House—and to your own office, Madam Speaker. We shall not do so if we continue to take the attitude to pay that we have in the past, particularly under the previous Prime Minister. I remember negotiations between the Prime Minister, Government representatives and Mr. Du Cann—then chairman of the 1922 Committee. Time and time again, we have failed to agree a reasonable level of pay.
The question can become mixed up with the issue of outside interests, and I dare say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will mention that. To question whether or not a person is a full-time Member of Parliament is grossly misleading. It would not be unreasonable to estimate that a full-time job occupies 40 hours per week. Most hon. Members work far in excess of 40 hours.
It is nonsense also that Ministers do not receive their full parliamentary salary. When I served as Financial Secretary, I did not accomplish my constituency work less well or any better than I do now. I slept rather less than I do now, although I do not sleep that much now. We should question the historical justification, which goes back to Domesday, for Ministers not receiving their full parliamentary salary. The whole issue must be examined, perhaps in the context of the Nolan committee. I am not in favour of hon. Members working full time in the sense that they have no outside interests, but we must review our whole pay structure and at some stage take a brave approach.
I understand the point about railwaymen made earlier by the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I suspect that their pay increases have not, in real terms, been vastly different from those of other workers and that their pay has increased substantially. If one takes a reasonable time scale, Ministers and Members of Parliament have made considerable voluntary decisions that have seriously undermined their real pay position in relation to other employees.
It is not a question of supply and demand—arguing that there are dozens of candidates for every general election and that, as supply exceeds demand, pay should be reduced. Any first year economics student could tell us that supply in relation to quality is what matters.
I support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and I hope that the House will agree to them. I trust that we will give thought also to the long-term strategy that we should adopt with regard to the pay of Members of Parliament. I do not expect to get enthusiastic headlines for my speech, but I have tried to demonstrate the right thing to do.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We would not be having this debate were it not for the stupidity of the Government and their colleagues a little while ago in supporting the moratorium on ministerial pay. I suspect that, privately, the Leader of the House wishes that he could look the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who is notable by his absence tonight, in the eye. I suspect that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was the principal architect of the embarrassment now faced by the Government. As an Opposition Member, it is not my job to minimise the embarrassment of Ministers on the Treasury Bench, so I shall comment on their stewardship of this matter and say how I think pay for Ministers of the Crown should be guided.
Like other hon. Members, may I say that you, Madam Speaker, your three deputies and the deputy Opposition Chief Whip are exceptions to that rule, as your salaries pale into insignificance when we consider your real worth. Nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important to bear in mind the fact that, although the Leader of the House is right to say that that moratorium exists, we must be sensitive to how these matters are seen outside the House, where people legitimately contrast with their own experience the fact that this pay award is way above the rate of inflation. Some people have had no pay award for 12 or 24 months and thousands have had pay cuts. They wonder why Ministers of the Crown should enjoy a catching up when their families and loved ones must tighten their belts. We cannot escape the fact that that is the experience of many of our constituents.
As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said yesterday, it is time that we were more conscious of how we are perceived outside the House. This week we had the backdrop of the Maples memorandum. I do not wish to go into Mr. Maples' analysis of the Government, but his term "yobbo" was important. What does it signal to the public when a vice-chairman of the Conservative party refers to some of his own kith and kin as "yobbos" and, in the same week, an attempt is made to increase the salaries of those whom they support?
Some 24 hours ago, another vice-chairman of the Conservative party spoke in a most unhelpful and unfriendly manner to our European neighbours. His comments were deeply offensive and an awful lot of Conservative supporters feel they were not to be expected from someone who supports and sustains the Government. Inevitably, that rubs off on the Ministers whom he backs.
I am conscious of the fact that our employees in the House are to have a pay award of some 2.2 per cent. this year. Although I do not want to get bogged down in percentages, we must be sensitive to the fact that many servants here work very hard and will inevitably go home to their spouses and discuss the award for Ministers on which we are voting tonight. When they contrast it with their pay award they will not be happy, and rightly so.
If the order goes through tonight, Cabinet Ministers will, from the triggering date of 1 January, enjoy an increase in pay of £3,070 per annum, which is a substantial sum at a time when the Government expect people to restrain their pay claims. The Government try to dodge that matter, but they are showing about the same restraint in terms of salaries of Ministers as are directors


of privatised companies. Contrast that with the actions of Jack Kennedy, who intervened forcefully against the president of United States Steel in one of his most important domestic statements, when he said that those people were selfishly putting their interests first when restraint was being demanded of workers elsewhere. I wish that the Prime Minister would emulate Jack Kennedy in terms of his position on both private pay awards for top directors in industry and Cabinet members.
Some important events happen when we are in recess. One that would have been probed much more had we not been in recess is the permitting—admittedly, under the rules—of a junior Minister of the Environment to continue to some extent his professional practice of dentistry. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister did not say, "Look, you takes your choice. I'd be delighted to have you in my Government but you must give it a full-time commitment."

Mr. Kirkwood: "Get your teeth into it."

Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed. That did not happen and even if the Prime Minister had good reason to allow the hon. Gentleman to continue to be in the Government—I read in the press that it was to keep up his skills—we must all make difficult choices when we enter public office. If one accepts ministerial office, it must be given 100 per cent. commitment and everything must be put aside. I regret that that did not happen in his case.
I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said on this and earlier occasions. However, I disagree with him about the differentials between the pay of Members of Parliament and Ministers. I may be in a minority of one, but I do not believe that Ministers of the Crown, perhaps with the exception of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, should receive more money than ordinary hon. Members. The system whereby Ministers receive a much higher salary means that Back-Bench Members who take seriously their role of checking, probing, cajoling and criticising the Executive are considered less important, less skilled and less diligent than Treasury Ministers.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for significant increases in the salaries.of Members of Parliament? That would be an interesting point.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am talking in terms of principle. Members' salaries should be harmonised with those of Ministers. I am not discussing the level of salaries. I am content with my salary, but I am not happy with the resources that I receive to fulfil my role as a Member of Parliament. That is another debate and, although I am prepared to go into it, I suspect that I would tax your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman continually demotes me. He is bound to reduce my salary.

Mr. Mackinlay: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
The question of resources will never go away. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are eating into their salaries to provide a full service to their constituents. It is not a party point. Salaries should be ring fenced and we should have adequate resources, including a constituency office. Many hon. Members currently use the Conservative, Labour or Liberal party offices in their

constituencies. Unfortunately, the dear old Thurrock Labour party does not even own a pencil, so I have to rent one, which is eating into the office costs allowance of my salary. If resources for hon. Members were properly ring fenced, my salary would be more than sufficient.
May I return to the thrust of my argument? Ministerial and Members' salaries should be one and the same because the job of probing and criticising the Government is extremely important. Many members of the public would consider my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) good value as he makes at least as important a contribution as the vast majority of Treasury Ministers. I endorse that view. To be generous, I could cite the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) as another example of a Back-Bench Member who gives good combative value for money and who cannot be bought by the system.
We should therefore think in terms of parity of treatment for people who enter public life, which would reduce the desire to be in office in order to be on the pay roll. There is sufficient incentive and desire to be a Minister apart from the salary. If we are honest, we will admit that the vast majority of those who enter the House want to reach ministerial office. That should be sufficient incentive in itself. Perhaps some—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—are an exception to the rule. I feel, however, that there should be no financial incentive.

Mr. Rooker: How does my hon. Friend know that he is right about that?

Mr. Mackinlay: I have a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, and I suspect that he would act in the way that I have suggested.
As for the history of ministerial salaries, it was realised early in our political development that Ministers of the Crown had to be employed full time. Salaries and other emoluments were provided accordingly, at a time when it was accepted that ordinary Members of Parliament were part-time workers: the vast majority had other incomes. Even at the time when the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) entered the House, the current extensive Committee structure did not exist. I do not.criticise the right hon. Gentleman's contemporaries in any.way, but in those days the role of Parliament was rnuch smaller in terms of the time demanded. Since then, things have moved on.
In an earlier debate, the right hon. Member for Worthing wondered whether Select Committee Chairmen should receive a higher salary. He decided that they should not—rightly, in my view—but I do not see why hon. Members with an obviously full commitment to Parliament should survive on the salary of an ordinary Member of Parliament while Ministers received additional emoluments.
I feel that, considering the current reputation of the House, it is time for us to avoid in future the nonsense of moratoriums and freezes, which obviously cause embarrassment. The Government must recognise that they are embarrassed, given the background of "yobbo" memorandums, their desire for wage restraint on the part of others and—unhappily—the low esteem in which, to some extent, the House is now held. Unless the order is withdrawn, the House should divide to demonstrate that some of us are not prepared to alleviate that embarrassment tonight.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and intend to deal with some of his comments.
I feel strongly about this issue. I also feel strongly that there are times when—in the best interests of Parliament and the people whom it serves—it is best to resist the temptation to swing along with popular opinion, given the current state of that opinion. It is a bit like believing in anti-cyclical investment: "In a recession, invest; in the frenzy of a boom, rein in." Sometimes the same applies to politics, and I believe that it applies to the issue that we are discussing. When the mood is against us, we should hold our ground; when we think that everyone loves us, we should beware of hubris.
As a champion of a number of unpopular causes, I know very well that any proposal to raise a Minister's salary will not meet with universal applause at the moment. Nevertheless, I wish to defend the proposed increase. Although it is against the fashion, I think that, when sense is restored, a broader base of opinion will be prepared to admit that it is really in agreement with tonight's proposal. In the present climate, it is almost impossible to conduct a reasoned national debate about the pay of Members of Parliament or Ministers; those in favour of any increase risk vilification.
Given the current press reports, anyone outside the House would be forgiven for thinking that Ministers are due to receive massive increases, way ahead of comparable awards elsewhere in the public sector. They are not: let us be clear about the facts. The first fact is that, in 1993, the pay of all Members of Parliament and Ministers was frozen. If anyone asked for a declaration of principle to be expressed in hard cash, that would be it. The pay freeze did not provoke great headlines or great expressions of gratitude, and neither should be asked for or expected; but, because of that freeze, and because of the delay in linking Ministers' pay with.civil.service.grades,Ministers.have.forgone—lost, never received, permanently missed out on—up to £4,000.
Because the former link with civil servants' pay had been undermined by changes in civil service pay arrangements, the House passed a motion that tried to re-establish a workable link for the pay of Members of Parliament with the average annual increase in salary for civil service grades 5 to 7 as a result of their pay settlement. It also provided for the resultant 1993 and 1994 increases for Members of Parliament to be staged, with 2.7 per cent. in January 1994 and 2.7 per cent. delayed until January 1995—when Members of Parliament would also be entitled to whatever increase was agreed for the 1994 civil service settlement. That settlement has turned out to be 2 per cent.
Although that motion could not determine the amount of Ministers' pay, it was made clear at the time that Her Majesty's Government believed that
the right course henceforth is for the salaries of Ministers … to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as Members".—[Official Report, 3 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 459.]
The order that we are discussing simply implements the policy set out last November. The key points that we are now discussing are exactly the same as those relating to the increase in the pay of Members of Parliament.
The root of the problem, and the discontent, is that, for purposes of easy comparison, no market can be freely left to set the salary of a Minister. It is essentially a pretty arbitrary exercise, ranging from the contention of some that they should be paid nothing to that of others who think that they should be very highly paid. When the spectrum ranges from zero to infinity, there is room for quite a few suggestions about who should be paid what.
The House of Commons cannot be compared with a private firm. When a concern is someone's property—when their own risk and money are involved—they can pay themselves what they like: on that basis thousands of people are being paid tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds, and it is none of our business to object. In the public sector, however, people have a rough idea of what is the fair rate for a job by comparing it with the private sector or by bargaining.
Some fall between the two—this is relevant to what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Thurrock—such as, I admit, a former nationalised industry, such as British Gas, in transition to a competitive position in private enterprise. Such industries have their own methods. If we accept that, in such cases, share options are unreasonable because in a monopolistic company there is little prospect of shares falling, it must be right for British Gas executives to be paid a single open salary—as they have been. Those fully defensible changes in salary structure,.however, fell on deaf ears, and few have pointed out that.if the managers were poorly paid we should all probably pay more for our gas.
The problem is that there is no market to set the salary of a Minister. Some may say that that does not matter: my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) pointed out that there is no shortage of people ready to do the job. I caution against that view, however. I have not been in the House for long, but I can already cite a handful of hon. Members who have declined to become Ministers or asked not to remain in ministerial posts, simply because of the pay.
Most, of course, would do the job at almost any price. Politics is unique: if it is in the head and the heart, one does the job. We all know that, but if he has to worry about money, even a Minister of the highest calibre may do the job less well. Either as Back Benchers or as Ministers, some will find themselves earning more in the House than they would outside; some—rather more, I suspect—find themselves working for less.
Some Back Benchers have outside interests and some do not, but, in the main, Ministers have none. They receive the official salary and that is it. In Britain I do not know anyone who has chosen to go into politics for the money. People here certainly do not go into politics to make money, but they do in other countries, and look what is happening to them. Most Ministers leave office considerably poorer than when they went in and that is a highly unsatisfactory way to produce the best possible culture for government.
What should we do? We should base salaries on a publicly acceptable link, and stick with that for ever and a day. Every time we do that, something goes wrong and we break the link. It is always a mistake to do so. We get


no thanks for the gesture and it serves no constructive purpose. All we do is guarantee that greater problems will accumulate for the future.

Mr. Mackinlay: Whose idea was it? Mr. Duncan: I shall come to that.
It is sensible to restore the link for which the House has already implicitly voted. We broke the link because the nature of civil service pay bargaining at the time did not allow us to stick with it.
I think that Ministers are grossly underpaid. Remuneration for our Ministers compares badly with that in other countries. In Singapore, which is much smaller but economically more successful, Lee Kuan Yew makes a point of impressing on his growing country that Members of Parliament there should be paid about the same as senior partners in an accountancy firm or a firm of solicitors or the same as senior managers in a bank or something like that. He believes that that is good for democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing pointed out that Ministers' pay has not kept up with earnings elsewhere or with inflation. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Lord President for answering a written question that I tabled yesterday. It points out that the differential between that which is earned by a Cabinet Minister and that earned by a Back Bencher in 1965 is now dramatically different from the differential that reigns today. If that same differential were to be in place, a Cabinet Minister would be paid well over £100,000 and the Prime Minister would be paid in excess of £150,000.
The salaries today are low compared with what could be earned in the commercial sector by most of those who hold a ministerial job.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend address the relationship between ministerial pay and pay in the higher echelons of the civil service, particularly the pay of permanent secretaries? It is unsatisfactory that Ministers should be paid substantially less than those at the top of the civil service.

Mr. Duncan: That is a helpful point which further illustrates my argument. The remuneration of a Back Bencher compares poorly with that of many who work within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. We humble Back Benchers are paid less than the deputy chef. I imagine that there are some servants of the House—I do not begrudge them a penny of what they earn—who are paid more than many a Minister of the Crown.
Our Ministers are entrusted with enormous budgets. They shoulder heavy duties and responsibilities, more than many in commerce. In the world of commodities, I used to buy and sell. We could churn away in the market and, in an oil boom, we would find out at the end of the year that we had traded a volume perhaps in excess of £4 billion. That is an enormous volume but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security makes that amount look pretty paltry. He is in charge of £86 billion and I think that even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would admit that my right hon. Friend is in charge of delivering that amount to those who need it most. It matters how he does his job. For that significant duty we pay him less than £70,000 a year. There are 30-year-olds in the City earning more than that. It would

not be impossible to find an adviser to a Cabinet Minister who is earning considerably more than the Secretary of State to whom he is answerable.
Those who parade their conscience by opposing the order do so to cement—so they think—some sort of identity with those who earn less and who resent a Minister earning more. They can claim compassion, as I would have it, on the cheap. They can enjoy a minute of applause and an echo of shared resentment. Such ephemeral posturing does not get us far. It serves no lasting purpose except to diminish further those who express the view and to encourage more to express unmerited discontent about Parliament and its work. At the end of the day, it makes everyone a loser and draws us all downwards.
I hope that, from now on, we can have a more enlightened approach to this issue. Let me immediately contribute to that enlightened approach by saying something that I believe to be true. Although the Leader of the Opposition has his car and his Short money, he is under-resourced. For the good of parliamentary democracy, I would give the Leader of the Opposition and his office far more than they receive at present.
Every hon. Member knows that there is never a good time to increase the pay of Members of Parliament by so much as a ha'penny, regardless of the rate of inflation or the circumstances of the rest of the community. Those in the news media, who earn far more than any of us, will be loud in their condemnation … so will many members of the general public who do not earn as much … I believe in a fair rate for the job. I do not abandon that principle solely for Members of Parliament or other public servants … I believe that a fair rate for the job should be paid irrespective of a person's other circumstances."—[Official Report, 3 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 462.]
I am amused to see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) shaking his head. I have cited word for word the statement made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she spoke in this debate last year. We learnt of the right hon. Lady's principles in that debate and I am afraid that they now conflict with the attitude of her party's leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
The Leader of the Opposition has said that he will not take the increase. He hardly needs to, having just received a rise on becoming Leader. His office has briefed the press to advise that he also thinks that, in principle, the increase for Ministers is wrong. There seems to be a conflict there. I must ask the Labour party whether the right hon. Member for Derby, South has jettisoned her principles, whether the Leader of the Opposition has decided to indulge in an opportunistic stunt or both.
I fear that the Leader of the Opposition has made that decision, which is a pity. He has one policy and no one can deny that the mood suits his purpose or that he is doing well out of it. That policy is to feed discontent and then to milk it for all it is worth. He is choosing to seize on grievance and to cash in on the politics of what I call the lowest common denominator. I urge him to forsake that policy in public to the House and to the press, in this case and in all others. All hon. Members should support the increase. Let us hope that both parties will approach this parliamentary matter with maturity and enlightenment today and in the future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who


may be trying to get a job. I have heard people make speeches like that before and in the next reshuffle they finish up as a Treasury spokesmen. We shall have to wait and see.
The furore over Mr. Brown and Mr. Giordano at British Gas has taken the heat out of the debate. Last weekend, the 4.7 per cent. pay increase for Ministers and the £3,000 increase for the Prime Minister were the issues. Twenty-four hours later, Mr. Brown came on to the scene with a £475,000 salary—so exit Members of Parliament from the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will admit that the anticipation with which he was looking forward to this debate rapidly melted away. However, some issues remain.
The Government are always on about performance-related pay for workers—the real wealth creators in our society. I cannot stand that policy. When I hear the Government telling all and sundry to accept individual payments and regional pay systems, all with a view to reducing the amount of money that workers receive and to breaking the back of the trade union movement, which is organising to raise pay and conditions, I cannot stand it.
I oppose not so much the 4.7 per cent. increase as the fact that workers in all sectors of industry and those in other professions such as nursing are being told that they must have performance-related pay. That is why there is so much controversy outside the House. The pay freeze causes difficulties. Workers cannot reconcile the fact that, somehow or other, they have to pull their socks up and tighten their belts every time, with the fact that Ministers and Members of Parliament, on some golden day, get their pay increased after a pay freeze. By and large, workers never catch up after a pay freeze. That is why I made my earlier comments to the Leader of the House.
The signal workers' attempt to catch up with money that they had lost, relative to other grades in the rail industry and elsewhere, is characteristic of the debate. The Government said that they could not have the money and fought them for three months, along with British Rail. That is why I feel intolerant towards the idea of extra pay for Ministers.
I used to work with miners. I do not know whether many people are aware of the fact that the National Union of Mineworkers has not negotiated a single pay increase since the strike. There has been a total pay freeze for many years, so it is not difficult to understand people's opinions when they read headlines about Ministers having a catching-up process and a 4.7 per cent. increase.
I do not go for this percentage business. A 4.7 per cent. increase for someone on £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 a year is very different from a 2 per cent. increase for a nurse on £200 a week or less. A 4.7 per cent. increase involves real money. When the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) talks about percentages, he fails to recognise that the percentage increase for Ministers,

although it may have fallen relative to increases for other professionals, means that they get considerably more money.

Mr. Mackinlay: They get £3,000.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Worthing said that the increase was relatively small, but £3,000 is as much as some pensioners have to live on. That sticks in the gullets of a lot of people.

Sir Terence Higgins: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the difference between absolute and percentage levels, but my point was that ministerial pay has been cut by 58 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Skinner: But that is not understood by people outside. Pensioners who have lost money see Ministers getting an extra £3,000 a year while they have to get by for a whole year on that kind of money. What about the minimum wage? How often have I heard Tory Members—one after the other, parrot fashion—attacking us because we are trying to get about £4 an hour for people on poverty wages? They then have the audacity to say that a 4.7 per cent. increase and £3,000 extra is chicken feed. That is the background to the debate; it is not about us talking as a gentlemen's club, but about people outside making comparisons.

Mr. Nigel Evans: rose—

Mr. Skinner: No, I shall not give way. Two or three hon. Members have been here for the whole debate and are still waiting to speak. To give way to the hon. Gentleman would be unfair to them.
The motion will undoubtedly be passed, despite a vote, but I do not want to hear the Government say that nurses, local government workers and fire fighters will have to sup the mop in the next few months. Many people are waiting in the pay queue and they are due for an increase shortly. The Government should take note of some of them as they are in the public sector, but my guess is that the Government will tell them that they cannot have an increase greater than the rate of inflation—some will get less or even face a pay freeze.
I do not want to hear that argument from Tories who then say that they themselves have fallen behind and are simply catching up. That is what puts people's backs up. Yes, there will be a vote; but the chances are that, because of Mr. Brown and Mr. Giordano, some of our supporters have been lost.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As usual, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) made an excellent contribution. He has followed the issue for many years. He rightly said that there is never a right time to examine ministerial pay or, for that matter, Members of Parliament's pay.
I understand what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said about percentage increases, but it is worth noting that the percentage increase awarded to the Prime Minister from 1979 to 1995 has been 107 per cent. while the increase that he—the hon. Member for Bolsover—has received as a Member of Parliament has been 251 per cent. I do not dismiss what the hon. Gentleman said, but we have to consider ministerial pay in the larger context.


I hope that the Lord President will pursue a little further what he said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who made a very reasoned speech. If one looks back over the years, it is possible to find reasoned speeches made by Opposition Members on this subject. When the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was shadow Leader of the House he said:
Of course, by any outside comparisons, Ministers of the Crown are underpaid. I say that in an objective sense, not in support of Ministers in the present Government."—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 824.]
The notion has been long accepted.
I cannot understand why Ministers receive a reduced parliamentary salary. It is nonsense to say that they do less in their constituencies than Members of Parliament. I know that the time is not right to change that, but it is time that we at least considered doing so.
We should also examine the pay of some other office holders in the House who I do not believe are adequately recognised. It seems strange that, because of the usual channels, the Opposition Chief Whip and two of his deputies should be recognised and yet, from what the Leader of the House has told us on many occasions, it also seems that the usual channels involve the shadow Leader of the House. She has been involved in discussions on the Jopling proposals.
Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, the matter should be considered by Nolan and the contribution made by people who have responsibilities—other than ministerial responsibilities—should be recognised in some sort of salary payment. I see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is saying that he, too, is involved.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned the new Select Committees and said that the Members concerned will have extra responsibilities. It is true that some Members have more responsibilities and the matter should be considered on a far wider scale. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, the Nolan Committee could consider the matter.
It is astounding that the Solicitor-General is paid more than the Patronage Secretary. The Prime Minister is the second highest paid member of the Cabinet—the Lord Chancellor is paid considerably more. There are a number of nonsenses and they should be dealt with. I hope that at some stage the time will be right to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) mentioned the number of people in this place who are paid more than Members of Parliament. An interesting written answer in column 191 of yesterday's Hansard shows that 101 people employed here are paid more than Members. We should deal with that problem.
In some respects, I even agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover—two Derbyshire Members agreeing is most worrying—and it is probably the only issue on which we have agreed. We should consider the salaries of people with public responsibility on the various boards that have been set up. Some are paid far more than local councillors. We should consider that in more reasoned times. Perhaps the Nolan Committee would be the right means of doing so.
We have seen some examples of gesture politics recently. Last weekend, the Leader of the Opposition said that he would not take his percentage increase. That is

hardly surprising. On 1 July, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was paid about £31,687. According to the latest figures, he is now being paid about £61,349. It is easy to give up a 4 per cent. pay increase when one has recently received a 100 per cent. increase. I might have taken a little more notice if he had said that he would not take any increase, rather than trying to get some cheap, quick headlines, which he did.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to say at some stage that the whole issue will be referred to the Top Salaries Review Body or to the Nolan Committee.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly at the end of this debate. It is always difficult speaking at the end and I can assure the Leader of the House and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I have one eye on the clock and will stop at exactly 9.20 pm, which will no doubt be a relief to everyone in the House.
On a serious note, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) that this is a sensitive issue. Factory closures have recently been announced in Norwich, North. That is a very serious matter as some people will become unemployed and will go on to low incomes. As other hon. Members who represent East Anglia know, my constituency is in an area of low wages. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, therefore, in saying that the issue is sensitive to people outside this place.
In the remainder of my speech I shall speak in support of the order. From listening to the debate, it has become clear that the House supports it. Although the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not listening at the moment, I must say that his speech almost convinced me that he was secretly in favour of the order, especially following the controversy about British Gas, to which I may refer again in a moment.

Mr. Skinner: No, I am not.

Mr. Thompson: I may have got it wrong. Certainly,.the hon. Gentleman's opposition was nothing like as enthusiastic as I had expected—

Mr. Skinner: I am nearly an old man—[Laughter.]

Mr. Thompson: I have no personal axe to grind in this matter. It is fairly well known that my time in the House is limited.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: A couple more years.

Mr. Thompson: I hope so. I think that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has missed my point, but I shall not pursue that.
I well recall that in the 1980s I took a position that was not entirely shared by some of my hon. Friends and opposed the review of top salaries. I remind hon. Members that I believe that it is incumbent on people on high salaries to set an example from the top. I have riot departed from that view. I believe that it is important that people on high salaries are conscious of the effect of pay awards on those on lower pay. I have not changed my mind on that matter.
Nevertheless, I still feel that it is right to support the order. The hon. Member for Bolsover referred to the chief executive of British Gas. I put on record my own view which, I suspect, is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, even if not by all my hon. Friends. I believe that it is incumbent on senior captains of industry, even though there are no restraints on them as we have here, to set an example and to bear in mind their public responsibilities. Although it is not relevant to this debate, I join those, such as the hon. Member for Bolsover and some of my colleagues, who feel that the pay rise of the chairman of British Gas was an unfortunate example to set. I hope that lessons have been learnt from it.
I am in favour of a link not with captains of industry but with public and civil servants. I agree with my hon. Friends who have spoken of links with civil service pay, and about looking at the professions and other people who serve the public outside. It is wrong to look at captains of industry; it is right to look at civil servants. I go along with those who suggest that it may be a little odd that Cabinet Ministers are paid less than permanent secretaries. We should look at doctors, at editors, at teachers and at professionals generally when we make comparisons with Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton.(Mr. Duncan) spoke about the salaries earned by editors.It is most unfortunate that our national newspapers are writing in such a derogatory way not about my party but about Parliament in general. I asked myself why I wanted to speak at all in this debate. The main reason—I agree, therefore, with comments from hon. Members on both sides—is the way in which this Parliament, and this is not a party point, and what goes on.here are being distorted by the press. That is another reason why I want to make a few remarks in support of the order.
I do not believe that this is the right time to talk about the pay of Members of Parliament, although a number of hon. Members have done so. After all, the issue of the pay of Members of Parliament is linked with other issues, such as whether they should receive pay from outside. The pay of Members of Parliament will be debated fully on other occasions. Ministers, of course, are constrained in the pay that they can get from outside. This is, as other hon. Members have said, a serious issue.
I remind the House that I do not support the order because I believe that there should be unrestrained pay increases at the top. I am in favour of restraint and I am in favour of an example being set, but I believe, as my hon. Friends and others have said clearly in the debate tonight, that Ministers' pay is low at present by any comparison.
A number of colleagues have referred to pay in the House. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will not rule me out of order for concluding my remarks in the following way. I shall not refer to your salary again. That has been done already this evening. The Clerk of the House of Commons—I think that this is last year's figure—earns £95,051 a year. A Principal Clerk, junior to the Clerk, earns £64,283 a year. My final example, because we all know these figures, is that the Director of Catering Services earns £57,612 a year.
I rest my case. Ministers are not well paid by any standards. They work hard and ridiculously long hours, which is not good for Government, but that is another point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be delighted, therefore, that I shall support a pay increase for him. I am delighted to support the motion.

Mr. Newton: I am particularly grateful for the last point since, by the time I have finished this speech, in the past 24 hours I shall have made a total of five or six speeches, one statement and answered a lot of questions, so I have kept reasonably busy. [Interruption.] It links with what I was going to say. I shall comment briefly on each of the speeches, as far as I can. I did not in any way begrudge the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) his bit of knockabout and I was grateful for the serious support that he gave to the basic argument.
I am marginally less grateful, I must say, to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who I hope may not be as pleased with his speech when he thinks about it as he appeared to be at the time. [Laughter.] No, I have a serious point to make. He appeared to be denouncing the notion that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) could do anything to keep in his hand and his professional skills. In other words, the demand was that my hon. Friend should destroy his professional skills, or risk doing so.

Mr. Mackinlay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Newton: At the same time, the hon. Gentleman was saying that my hon. Friend should not have any pay increase at all in comparison to a Member of Parliament. There were two parts to his argument: Ministers were to be paid no more than Members of Parliament and that my hon. Friend should not even be allowed to practise his professional skill. I ask him to think about that. Apart from that, I do not begrudge him his knockabout either.
I do not even begrudge the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which he expressed with some vigour. I do not share his point of view, but I understand why he makes it. Indeed, I found the first part of his remarks about what had happened on another front quite engaging.
It would be very grudging indeed not to express my gratitude for the fact that nearly all of my right hon. and hon. Friends urged that should there be a bigger pay increase than I had thought remotely practicable to propose. Indeed, they put forward an impressive range of arguments for precisely such a pay increase. The point with which I am most readily able to agree, because it is exactly what I am proposing—this is not to imply that I dismiss any of the other points as there were some good points on which I hope others outside will reflect when they comment on our affairs—was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan): that we need to fix a link and stick with it. That is, of course, the basis of what was done in November last year and what is being proposed now. I am grateful once again to have the support of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on that.
The only other point that I shall make is directed to almost all Conservative Members, to some of those on the Opposition Benches implicitly and to some of those who asked me questions in discussion and interviews on the


matter outside the House. People say—some of my hon. Friends were edging towards this—that the entire matter should be put to some great and good independent review body. Indeed, for all I know, the Nolan committee may decide to make some observations on it. One of the great ironies of the suggestion that it should go to an independent body, such as the senior salaries review body, is that not a person in this House does not know that, if it did, the recommendation that it would make would exceed by a huge amount what I have thought it right to put before the House. Every time that Members' pay and allowances—certainly in my political lifetime here and before—have been put to some great and good body, recommendations have come forward so large that the Government of the time have not felt able to recommend them to the House. Most notably, I recently made a recommendation to the House on Members' pay and allowances that was so much lower than the proposal of the senior salaries review body that the House voted to reject my advice because it believed that Members deserved more.
The key point, as everyone in the House knows, is that an independent body would recommend far more than I have thought it right to propose. I hope that others outside the House will reflect on that fact. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 179,Noes 13.

Division No. 4]
[21.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripen)


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ancram, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dixon, Don


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baldry.Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gallie, Phil


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Sir Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)





Hoyle, Doug
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rendel, David


Hunt, Fit Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Janner, Greville
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jenkin, Bernard
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)




Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stem, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Streeter, Gary



Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tredinnick, David


Mans, Keith
Trend, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Merchant, Piers
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
 Ward, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Waterson, Nigel


Monro, Sir Hector
 Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Whitney, Ray


Nelson, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Norris, Steve
Willetts, David


Oppenheim, Phillip

Wolfson, Mark


Ottaway, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Page, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paice, James



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Simon Burns and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Dr. Liam Fox.


NOES



Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Parry, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Chidgey, David
Skinner, Dennis


Chidgey, David
Spearing, Nigel


Chisholm, Malcolm
Welsh, Andrew


Ewing, Mrs Margaret



Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Tellers for the Noes:


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL

Ordered,
That the Children (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Madam Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Maternity Services, Edinburgh

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I applied for the Adjournment debate a couple of weeks ago because of the clear intention of Lothian health board to centralise all Edinburgh maternity services at one hospital, the proposed new Edinburgh royal infirmary at the southern edge of the city, and also because it planned to break its clear promise to reopen a maternity unit at the Western general hospital, which serves large areas of my constituency.
There were several reasons why that caused anger in my constituency and beyond. First, and most important, it was a denial of the fundamental principle of choice. Choice for women means not just choosing the kind of unit in which to give birth, but the location of that unit.
Secondly, there would have been very long travel times for women in my constituency when they had to go into hospital to have their children, for antenatal visits and for visits from their relatives when they were in hospital. That would have involved great expense and many people in the catchment area of the Western general hospital are poor and deprived.
The third reason was that the health board had overlooked the high density of population and the high birth density in north Edinburgh. It seemed an ideal solution to have a maternity unit at the Western general hospital, which serves an area where there is much poverty and deprivation. It seemed a good idea to have a maternity unit near such an area rather than miles away on the other side of the city.
The fourth reason was that there seemed to be no evidence for the proposition that one centralised maternity unit was safer. That argument was being advanced by many health professionals. Yet that opinion is not shared by other health professionals. There does not seem to be any evidence to back up such a proposition.
I received a copy of a letter from a professor of paediatrics in Canada who previously worked at the Western general hospital but now works in the university of British Columbia. He said:
We were, until recently, the only tertiary perinatal centre for a birth population of 45,000, with 8,000 births, heavily high risk oriented, in house. In my experience 8,000 deliveries is about twice too many.
People were particularly angry because the original acute services strategy put out for consultation earlier this year contained a proposal for a maternity unit at the Western general hospital. That was overwhelmingly approved by people during the consultation process. Therefore, people were angry when that proposal was rejected and it was decided to work up another proposal in which all the births would be centralised at one mega-unit in the south of Edinburgh.
Since then, there has been a strong and vociferous campaign against that proposal. It was spearheaded by a group called the Women's Health Lobby. They did a great deal of research which showed that women simply did not want such a proposal. The group was also supported by both councils in Lothian—Lothian regional council and

Edinburgh district council. It was supported by many general practitioners and by the local newspaper, the Edinburgh Evening News.
That campaign was so strong and the opposition was so overwhelming that Lothian Health was forced late in the day to come up with a compromise proposal. That became clear only at the health board meeting on Tuesday. In that compromise, the board has come up with the smallest concession that it could get away with. It is a proposal for 1,000 deliveries a year in a midwife-led unit at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh.
I am not opposed in principle to a midwife-led unit, but there are several problems with the proposal. I should like to mention at least three of them. First, there is no guarantee that it will go ahead. The health board stated in the proposal that it would evaluate other midwife-led units currently in operation in Scotland and then come to a decision. We do not know what the result of the evaluation will be. Beyond that, the proposal has to obtain the approval of the Scottish Office. We know that Lord Fraser, the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health, did not accept Fife health board's proposal for a midwife-led unit at Dunfermline. That is an analogous proposal to the proposal for the Western general. Both are stand-alone units without obstetric back-up on site. It is by no means clear that the proposal will be implemented.
Secondly, even if the proposal is implemented, we are talking about a single unit of 18 beds and about 1,000 deliveries a year. That will not meet the demand for that type of delivery. If Lothian Health is now saying that such a unit is acceptable at the Western general, why not have one in other places in the city? If the principle of midwife-led units is accepted, why not have more? It is clear that there will be far more demand not only from the local population but from all over the area because many women are attracted to such small units rather than the large mega-unit on the outskirts of the city.
Thirdly, many women will not be allowed to go into such a unit. In the proposal that was worked up by Western general hospital, it was stated that only 40 per cent. of local women would be eligible for such care. So the majority of women in the area which I represent would not even be allowed to have their babies in such a unit. I shall listen carefully to what women in my constituency say about the proposal for a midwife-led unit. If they accept it, I will certainly accept it, but the message that I am getting now is that such a proposal simply is not enough.
I should like to know why Lothian Health did not adopt the proposal made my me and many other people that there should be two units with perhaps the larger at the new royal infirmary. It could even have a unit of 4,000-plus deliveries, and there could still be one of 2,500-plus deliveries at the Western general. Within those large units, there could be midwife-led units. An innovation in maternity practice is to have midwife-led units in a hospital setting alongside obstetrician-led units. That proposal was not even discussed seriously at the health board meeting on Tuesday. In fact, many attempts have been made to rubbish such a proposal.
In correspondence in the past few weeks, the chairman of Lothian Health said that there would not be enough people to use such a unit at the Western general and that the catchment area would mean that only about 1,700 deliveries a year would take place there. I cannot for the life of me understand how he comes to that conclusion,


because more than half of Edinburgh is nearer to the Western general than to the new royal infirmary proposed at Little France. Therefore, I do not see how he arrives at a figure of 1,700 or fewer deliveries at the Western general and, presumably, 4,500 or nearly 5,000 deliveries at the new royal infirmary.
One of the mysteries of the process has been how many deliveries we are talking about. When the proposal was first put forward, we were talking about 7,500 deliveries at the new royal infirmary, which would provide the largest maternity unit in the United Kingdom. But as the debate went on, it suddenly became clear that we were talking about 6,500 deliveries. There may be a good explanation for that. It has not been given to me. Some people are slightly sceptical about this, because the lower number of deliveries may have made it slightly easier to sell the case for a large unit.
I would like the proposal for the two units to be seriously considered. Most of all, I would like there to be a full consultation process on the new proposal. What we have before us is not the same proposal as went out to consultation earlier this year. It is for a small midwife-led unit. The indications that I am getting are that it is not accepted as adequate by the women whom I represent, so I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will ask Lothian Health to carry out a full and proper consultation. There was a slight ambiguity at the end of the meeting on Tuesday. The chairman began to talk about marketing the proposal and fortunately somebody else on the board objected and said that we needed consultation, but it was not clear if we would get it.
The most important principle in all this is that women should decide what kind of maternity care they want. Therefore, it is essential that we have full consultation on the proposal. I suspect that, if that takes place, women will say that they want a larger unit at the Western general; that they want something more in line with the original proposal that was thrown out earlier this year. That is what I am arguing for this evening and shall continue to argue for as long as the women of my constituency want it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for.Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) on his success in the ballot and on initiating this debate on an issue which we all accept is of great interest and concern to the people of Edinburgh and to his constituents in particular. He has put his case in his customary well-researched and forthright way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the timing of the debate and, as he rightly pointed out, it was only 10 days ago, after he had applied for the debate, that my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State announced ministerial endorsement for Lothian Health's acute services strategy. At that time, proposals for the future of maternity services in Lothian were still to be finalised.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that the board has taken a decision in the past two days on how it wishes maternity services to be provided from now until the 21st century. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State will need to take time to consider the proposals carefully. Therefore, I am not in a position tonight to confirm the Government's endorsement or otherwise of

the proposals. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that what he has said tonight will be read carefully by my noble and learned Friend and all the points that he has reasonably made to the House will be taken fully into account.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we have made great strides in developing maternity care in Scotland. I agree with his point about meeting in principle the wishes of mothers, who have been saying loud and clear that they want services that are accessible, flexible and treat them with dignity. That shift in attitudes had led to positive changes in maternity care throughout Scotland, and we are actively encouraging those developments.
This debate is specific to Edinburgh, which has long been at the forefront of innovations in maternity care. It had the first professor of midwifery in the world in 1726—Professor Joseph Gibson. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the pioneering work later of Professor James Simpson.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman's question about the number of births in the city, there are currently 7,000 a year, and mothers have access to a full range of antenatal and post-natal services. Most women experience shared care between GPs, obstetricians and midwives. Both the Simpson Memorial maternity hospital and the Eastern general hospital offer home births, domino deliveries, midwife care and shared midwife and obstetrician care. Lothian Health is committed to building on that range of choices.
I know that the hon. Gentleman joins me in paying tribute to the major contribution that the Simpson and the Eastern general have provided to mothers over the years. Tribute should be paid also to the excellent delivery services formerly provided by the Elsie Inglis maternity hospital and the Western general hospital.
There have been major changes in the pattern of maternity care in Edinburgh over the years and growing recognition of the need for proper community-based maternity care. Lothian Health would freely admit that there is considerably further to go in developing community-based services and ensuring that delivery services are fully sensitive to the needs of mothers. It is addressing those issues in its review of maternity services.
The immediate spur to action for Lothian Health has been the need to reconfigure maternity services in the light of its acute services strategy. In future, adult acute in-patient hospital services will be provided from three modern hospitals in Lothian. For Edinburgh, that means a new state-of-the-art royal infirmary, which will be built in Little France in south-east Edinburgh, and a substantial redevelopment and upgrading of the Western general. That is excellent news for Edinburgh, which for too long has had to make do with aging and increasingly outdated hospital buildings.
The proposals were, of course, strongly supported in Lothian Health's public consultation, and they promise substantial improvements in acute in-patient care. The hon. Gentleman raised the specific issue of further consultation. That matter is for Lothian, which will no doubt carefully read the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
To deliver that 21st century pattern of hospital services, it is necessary to close outdated and old buildings. More specifically, when Lothian consulted the public on its acute strategy, it proposed three maternity units in Lothian, with one each at the new royal infirmary and at


the Western general hospital—the third being at St John's hospital in Livingston. That proposal was, of course, widely welcomed.
Subsequently, the board accepted that it should take account of concerns expressed that the highest standards of care might not be possible unless deliveries were kept to just two sites in Lothian. The health board was mindful of the need to consider both the importance of local accessibility, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, and the requirement to secure a pattern of service that offers the greatest possible scope for successful outcomes. The board therefore commissioned its maternity services liaison committee to conduct a full appraisal comparing the two-site and three-site options. As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the committee's report came down in favour of two sites—one at St John's and one in Edinburgh—and the board undertook to consider that report at its meeting on 22 November. Ministers were happy to announce their approval of the acute services strategy last week on the understanding that the maternity issue could remain unresolved for a little longer, but Ministers would need to approve the board's final proposals.
As the hon. Member knows, the board has now decided to accept its maternity services liaison committee's recommendations. It is committed to the principles that primary care should be the main focus of maternity services; community-based midwifery teams are needed to ensure greater continuity of care; and consultant-led obstetric outreach facilities should be further developed to provide local community care for more complex pregnancies. The board also intends further to develop neonatal services, enhance the range of anaesthetic services and look into furthqr developing maternal intensive care services for those with the greatest need for medical care.

Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister realise that, in some ways, the centralisation plan was sold under the cover of having community services for antenatal care, yet in the

original acute services strategy, it was proposed that antenatal care should be given in the community, so the issue of antenatal care is separate from that of a mega-unit?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but in the context of the strategy as a whole, antenatal care is a key issue. The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree about that. If those principles are taken together, they represent an impressive list of commitments and the key principle of the strategy is a major move towards community-based ante and post-natal maternity services. I am not pre-empting anything that my noble Friend the Minister of State may decide by saying that those principles are to be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the key issue of whether facilities should be supplied in addition to those already proposed by the board. The Government welcome the evaluation of the midwife-led model of care for deliveries. In proposing the unit to which he referred for the Western general hospital, the health board has been mindful of the experimental midwife units that have been set up in Glasgow, Aberdeen and Kirkcaldy, as well as south of the border. We are now starting to learn about the key conditions that need to be met to ensure that such units can work effectively and safely, especially if they are not alongside an obstetric delivery unit. The support of all participating professionals is needed. Midwives running the units need the necessary skills and confidence. That is common ground.
To sum up, I congratulate the health board on coming up with proposals for maternity services which clearly demonstrate its commitment to delivering the highest possible quality of service. I welcome its concern to deliver greater choice in delivery, to ensure the highest standards of safety and further promote the availability of accessible and flexible services based in the community.
I congratulate the hon. Member on raising this debate, in such timely fashion, on these important matters and assure him that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State will take his comments fully into account before final decisions are made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Ten o'clock.